Hudson v. Andes

Background

Toriano G. Hudson, identified in the caption as a California state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a procedure for challenging custody based on an alleged violation of federal law. Hudson said he had been resentenced from 35 years to life to 13 years and 4 months. He then received what he described as false rules-violation reports after refusing cellmates because of the risk of COVID-19, which he said he had contracted in 2020. He alleged that the resulting rules violations caused his release date to move from July 30, 2024, to December 17, 2024.

Court’s analysis

The petition challenged rules violations that resulted in the loss of credits and also raised retaliation. A state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief from the fact or length of confinement generally must first present each federal claim to the highest available state court, giving that court a fair opportunity to decide the claim. The court may summarily dismiss a petition when its face shows that the claims have not been exhausted.

Hudson stated that he had not sought relief in any proceeding other than an appeal. The court also found no record of proceedings filed in the California Supreme Court after the rules violations challenged in the petition. Because Hudson had not completed state review, the court said he could not challenge the credit deductions in federal court first. It stated that he must raise each claim at every level of state appellate review before filing another federal petition. The court separately explained that a retaliation claim that does not challenge the fact or length of confinement is not a proper habeas claim.

Ruling

Judge Edward M. Chen dismissed the petition without prejudice to Hudson filing a new petition when his claims are exhausted. The Clerk was ordered to close the file. The order did not decide the merits of Hudson’s credit-loss claims.