Ramirez v. Robertson
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-02876
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ramirez v. Robertson, Judge Orrick dismissed Ramirez’s habeas petition with leave to amend because it did not show the disciplinary decision affected sentence length.
The order directly affected Arthur Nester Ramirez’s federal habeas petition and changed the respondent list by leaving James Robertson as the sole respondent and terminating J. McBride and M. Eggen.
What happened
Arthur Nester Ramirez challenged a prison disciplinary decision under federal habeas law, alleging that the proceedings violated due process after he was found to have refused a cellmate. He did not explain whether the decision caused him to lose time credits or otherwise lengthened his sentence.
The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend. It said that the possibility that the decision contributed to Ramirez being denied parole was not enough to establish habeas jurisdiction because parole decisions consider many factors. Ramirez was given until November 9, 2020, to file an amended petition explaining any lost credits or direct effect on his sentence and providing other required dates and information.
Judge William H. Orrick also ordered the clerk to remove J. McBride and M. Eggen as respondents and leave James Robertson as the sole respondent. The order warned that failing to file an adequate amended petition could result in dismissal of the action.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Robertson · No. 3:20-cv-02876
- William Orrick
- Sept. 28, 2020
Background
Arthur Nester Ramirez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary decision. He alleged that he was denied due process in proceedings concerning a charge that he refused to have a cellmate. Ramirez also alleged that the decision may have contributed to his being denied parole in 2019.
Court’s analysis
Federal habeas jurisdiction under § 2254 requires a person to be in custody in violation of federal law, and the court explained that there is no habeas jurisdiction unless the challenged decision directly affected the length of the sentence. Ramirez did not state whether he forfeited time credits or whether the disciplinary decision otherwise lengthened his sentence.
The court held that the possible effect on parole was insufficient to establish habeas jurisdiction. It relied on the reasoning that parole decisions involve many factors and that removing a disciplinary violation would not necessarily result in parole. The court did not decide whether Ramirez’s disciplinary proceedings violated due process.
Disposition
The court dismissed the petition with leave to file an amended petition by November 9, 2020. The amended petition had to explain whether Ramirez lost time credits or whether the disciplinary decision otherwise directly affected the length of his sentence. It also had to state the number of days forfeited, if any, and provide the dates when the charges were filed, the hearing occurred, and the disciplinary decision was issued. The court warned that failure to file an adequate amended petition would result in dismissal of the action.
The court directed the clerk to list James Robertson as the sole respondent and terminate J. McBride and M. Eggen as respondents. It stated that Robertson was the proper respondent because he was the custodian with day-to-day control over Ramirez. The court also instructed Ramirez to include all desired claims in any amended petition because it would replace the earlier petitions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.