Nakhei v. Foss
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:19-cv-04604
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Nakhei v. Foss, Judge Seeborg dismissed the constructive-possession claim, ordered a response to remaining habeas claims, and raised possible jurisdiction problems.
Tooraj A. Nakhei’s federal challenge to the prison disciplinary decision was allowed to proceed on his remaining claims for the time being, while T. Foss was required to answer or seek dismissal; the constructive-possession constitutional claim was dismissed.
What happened
In Tooraj A. Nakhei v. T. Foss, Nakhei sought federal review of a prison disciplinary decision involving a dangerous-weapon finding and lost time credits. The opinion says the number of lost credits is unclear and that the disciplinary decision was later voided.
The court found that Nakhei’s due-process and equal-protection allegations stated claims that could be considered. It dismissed his separate argument that the use of “constructive possession” is unconstitutional, while allowing that argument about the sufficiency of the evidence to be considered as part of the due-process claim.
Judge Seeborg ordered T. Foss to answer the remaining claims or file a motion to dismiss by February 24, 2020. The judge also identified possible jurisdiction problems because the disciplinary decision may have been voided and the lost credits may have been restored, but the order did not decide those issues.
The detailed version
- Nakhei v. Foss · No. 3:19-cv-04604
- Richard Seeborg
- Dec. 12, 2019
Background
Tooraj A. Nakhei petitioned for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from a prison disciplinary decision. According to the petition, officials at Pleasant Valley State Prison found him guilty in 2016 of possessing a dangerous weapon. The disciplinary punishment included the loss of time credits, but the opinion says the amount is unclear: one document listed 360 days, another appeared to reduce the amount to 181 days, and Nakhei said he lost two years.
The petition also stated that the rules-violation report was later “voided in the interest of justice” in 2019. The opinion does not establish whether the lost credits were restored.
Claims and jurisdiction concerns
Nakhei claimed violations of due process and equal protection. The court concluded that, when read liberally, those allegations stated claims that could support habeas relief. The court also noted two possible jurisdiction problems. First, if the credits were restored and the sentence was therefore unaffected, habeas relief would not necessarily lead to immediate or faster release, and there might be no live federal case or controversy. The court also said an expunged disciplinary decision could not support a claim based only on a possible effect on parole. Second, the voiding of the disciplinary decision might have cured any due-process violation. The court did not resolve either issue at this stage.
Ruling
The court dismissed Nakhei’s claim that the “constructive possession” theory of liability is unconstitutional, explaining that there is no federal law or constitutional right to be free from that theory. The court stated that Nakhei’s separate argument that constructive possession was insufficient evidence could be considered as part of his due-process claim.
Procedural orders and disposition
The court issued an order to show cause rather than dismissing the entire petition. It ordered T. Foss to file an answer showing why a writ should not be granted, along with relevant portions of the state record, by February 24, 2020. In place of an answer, T. Foss could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds by that date. The order gave Nakhei deadlines to respond to either filing and reminded him to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders. The filing fee had been paid.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.