Ontiveros v. Diaz

Background

Albert A. Ontiveros filed this self-represented federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a state prisoner to challenge custody that violates federal law. He was serving a 13-year, eight-month sentence imposed by the Alameda County Superior Court on August 23, 2010.

In 2011, prison officials found Ontiveros guilty of possessing marijuana in violation of California prison regulations. The disciplinary decision imposed a 130-day loss of time credits and stated that the credits could not be restored. Prison officials did not enter that loss into Ontiveros’s Legal Status Summary until January 31, 2017. A release-date notice issued several months later reflected that the credit loss delayed his expected release date.

Ontiveros did not challenge the disciplinary decision or punishment through an inmate appeal in 2011. He later filed state habeas petitions challenging the disciplinary decision, but the California Supreme Court rejected his petition under a state rule requiring exhaustion of available administrative remedies before filing a state habeas petition.

This federal case initially included a state-law claim and two constitutional claims. The court dismissed the state-law claim and ordered a response to claims that the six-year delay violated due process and that other inmates’ time credits had not been taken away after a similar delay.

Equal-Protection Claim

The respondent argued that the equal-protection claim was unexhausted because Ontiveros had not presented it to the California Supreme Court. Ontiveros did not dispute that point and said he waived the claim to avoid further delay.

The court agreed that state remedies had not been exhausted. Because Ontiveros waived the claim, the court dismissed it rather than staying the federal case to allow further state-court proceedings. The opinion does not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Due-Process Claim

The respondent argued that the due-process claim was barred by the state court’s procedural ruling. Ontiveros argued that he could not exhaust administrative remedies because prison officials mishandled his inmate appeals. The court did not decide whether to honor the state procedural bar. Instead, it assumed the bar did not apply and reviewed the due-process claim without deference to the state court.

The court ruled that the six-year delay did not violate due process. It characterized the delay as one in recording the punishment, not in imposing it: the 130-day credit loss was imposed in 2011, stated in the written disciplinary decision, and known to Ontiveros at that time.

The court explained that federal due-process protections for prison discipline require procedures such as notice, an opportunity to prepare, a written decision, appropriate opportunities to present evidence, and some evidence supporting the decision. The court found no case establishing a constitutional right to immediate imposition or immediate recording of disciplinary punishment. It also ruled that the governing federal standards did not clearly establish a right to review of the credit loss by the classification committee in the circumstances Ontiveros described.

The court separately considered principles concerning delayed criminal sentencing. Even assuming those principles applied, it found that the disciplinary punishment itself was not delayed. The recording delay weighed in Ontiveros’s favor as to its length and apparent cause, which the court described as bureaucratic carelessness. But the court found that Ontiveros was not diligent in asserting his rights and had not shown prejudice from the delay. It therefore denied relief on the due-process claim.

Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, dismissed the equal-protection claim for failure to exhaust state remedies, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and ordered the Clerk to close the file. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on October 26, 2020.