Hash v. Santoro

Background

Lawrence George Hash, a state prisoner at North Kern State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging prison disciplinary proceedings at San Quentin State Prison. Those proceedings resulted in a guilty finding for criminal threats. Hash alleged that the proceedings violated due process because he did not receive proper notice of the alleged misconduct and because prison officials improperly used confidential information.

Hash was serving an indeterminate sentence of 29 years to life with the possibility of parole. His minimum eligible parole date had been in October 2019. He argued that success would reverse the disciplinary finding, restore 150 days of behavior credits, reduce his classification score, and lower his custody level. He also argued that restored credits could advance his parole hearing under California's elderly-parole program. The respondent argued that the petition did not present a claim that could be decided through federal habeas review because success would not necessarily accelerate Hash's release or shorten his confinement.

The court granted Hash's request for permission to file an unsolicited reply to the respondent's reply brief.

Court's reasoning

The court explained that a federal habeas petition is generally the proper vehicle for challenging the fact or duration of custody, while a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is generally proper for challenges that would not necessarily result in earlier release or a shorter period of confinement.

The court agreed with the respondent that success on Hash's disciplinary challenge would not necessarily affect the length of his incarceration. Because Hash had an indeterminate life sentence and had already passed his minimum eligible parole date, the loss of credits would not push back his release date or parole-eligibility date. The court stated that the result could be different for a prisoner serving a fixed-term sentence or for a prisoner who had not yet reached the minimum date for parole eligibility, but those circumstances did not apply here.

The court also rejected Hash's argument that the decision in Nettles v. Grounds was an ex post facto law because his disciplinary violation occurred before that decision. The court explained that Nettles was judicial authority, did not increase the punishment for Hash's offense, and therefore did not create an ex post facto violation.

As to Hash's custody classification, the court noted that Hash was no longer housed in the segregated housing unit or a high-security facility. The record also indicated that his classification score had been reduced and that he had been transferred to North Kern State Prison, which the opinion described as a medium-security facility. The court did not decide whether this part of the dispute was moot. Instead, it found that any reduction in custody level resulting from expunging the disciplinary finding was speculative because other factors could affect Hash's custody classification. In any event, success would not necessarily shorten his sentence.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the petition. The petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not appropriate for federal habeas review. The dismissal was without prejudice to Hash bringing his due process claims in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court denied a certificate of appealability, finding that Hash had not shown that reasonable judges could debate whether the court's procedural ruling was correct. The court stated that Hash could seek a certificate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the file, and directed that a blank civil-rights complaint form be sent to Hash.