Ray v. Sullivan
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-03418
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ray v. Sullivan, Judge Illston ordered a response to Edward V. Ray’s habeas petition challenging restoration of prison time credits.
Edward V. Ray and William Joe Sullivan, the respondent; the order also directs the Attorney General of California to receive and respond to the petition.
What happened
Ray v. Sullivan concerns Edward V. Ray’s self-represented petition challenging how prison officials calculated and restored his time credits. He is serving a 38-year, 4-month prison term, but the petition does not challenge his conviction or sentence.
Ray previously won relief concerning a prison disciplinary decision that caused him to lose 130 days of time credits. He argues officials violated the earlier order by restoring only 105 days. The court explained that the earlier order vacated the disciplinary decision and resulting loss of credits but did not require restoration of exactly 130 days.
The court did not decide whether Ray is entitled to additional credits. In Ray v. Sullivan, Judge Illston ordered William Joe Sullivan to answer the petition and provide relevant disciplinary-record materials, while allowing Ray to respond afterward.
The detailed version
- Ray v. Sullivan · No. 3:20-cv-03418
- Susan Illston
- July 17, 2020
Background
Edward V. Ray, who is incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, filed a self-represented petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges a decision about calculating his prison time credits, not his conviction or 38-year, 4-month sentence.
Ray previously filed a related petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. The court granted relief on a due-process claim and ordered that the disciplinary decision and the resulting loss of time credits be vacated. In this case, Ray argues that prison officials failed to follow that order because they restored 105 of the 130 days he had lost. He claims he has a federally enforceable due-process right to have all 130 days restored.
Court’s analysis
At this initial review stage, the court may summarily dismiss a habeas petition only when its allegations are vague or conclusory, plainly incredible, or clearly frivolous or false. The court found that, when read liberally, Ray’s allegations that he has a federal right to have his sentence and time credits calculated properly were not plainly frivolous. The court therefore determined that a response was warranted.
The court also clarified that Ray had misstated the earlier order. That order did not specify that exactly 130 days had to be restored. Instead, it vacated the disciplinary decision and the resulting loss of time credits. The court noted that time-credit calculations can be complicated, including because prisoners may serve time at an 80% rate or may have credits restored.
Disposition
The court ordered the respondent to file and serve an answer by October 9, 2020, explaining why the habeas writ should not issue. The respondent also must provide relevant portions of the disciplinary-hearing record. Ray may file and serve a response by November 20, 2020. The court did not decide whether Ray is entitled to restoration of additional time credits. Judge Susan Illston also warned that failure to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.