Shirriel v. Bloomfield

Background

Tyrone Shirriel, a California prisoner representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the denial of parole and a disciplinary hearing. He alleged that the hearing violated his rights because he was denied potentially exculpatory evidence, including a videotape and other documents. The disciplinary report charged him with forging an official document that could affect his term. He was found guilty of a lesser charge and assessed a 60-day loss of credits. Shirriel alleged that this disciplinary report was the only basis for finding him unsuitable for parole at his January 28, 2020 hearing.

Parole Claim

The court held that Shirriel failed to state a federal due-process claim based on the denial of parole. Under the governing standard, a prisoner must at least receive an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons for the parole denial. Shirriel did not allege that he was denied either protection, and the parole-hearing transcript he submitted indicated that no such procedural violation occurred.

Disciplinary-Hearing Claim

The court stated that Shirriel’s allegation that he was denied access to and the ability to present evidence could, if read broadly, identify a violation of a procedural protection recognized for prison disciplinary hearings. But the court ruled that the claim could not be pursued through habeas corpus because the required connection to an earlier release was missing. The state superior court had found that the 60 days of lost credits were later restored. In addition, overturning the disciplinary finding would not necessarily result in earlier release because it would not necessarily lead to parole; parole decisions consider multiple factors.

Civil-Rights Action and Disposition

The court declined to convert the habeas petition into a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It explained that the forms require different information, including the intended defendants, the connection between each defendant and the claims, and the requested relief. The court also noted uncertainty about whether Shirriel was willing to pay the civil-action filing fee.

The court dismissed the habeas action without prejudice to Shirriel filing a separate civil-rights action under Section 1983. It denied his motion for appointment of counsel as moot because the case was dismissed. The clerk was instructed to send Shirriel two civil-rights complaint forms and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee.