Lopez v. Robinson
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-00412
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Lopez v. Robertson: Judge Tigar dismissed Lopez’s habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction and denied a certificate of appealability, permitting a new civil-rights action.
Andrew R. Lopez’s challenge to the prison disciplinary finding was dismissed from the habeas case, but the dismissal was without prejudice to filing a new civil-rights action. The respondent’s name was corrected to James Robertson.
What happened
In Andrew R. Lopez v. James Robertson, Andrew R. Lopez challenged a prison disciplinary finding for fighting after an incident involving another inmate. He claimed violations of due process and equal protection, denial of the right to defend himself, and falsification of the hearing record. He sought removal of the disciplinary violation.
The court held that it lacked authority to review the challenge through a petition for federal review of imprisonment because removing the disciplinary finding would not necessarily shorten Lopez’s indeterminate life sentence or result in parole. The court explained that the parole board considers disciplinary records along with other information, and a disciplinary finding is only one factor. The court also noted that a civil-rights action could be used for these challenges instead.
Judge Jon S. Tigar dismissed the petition without prejudice, meaning Lopez may file a new civil-rights action, and denied a certificate of appealability. The court also ordered the respondent’s name corrected from Robinson to Robertson and directed that Lopez receive two civil-rights complaint forms.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Robinson · No. 4:21-cv-00412
- Jon Tigar
- Aug. 23, 2021
Background
Andrew R. Lopez, who was incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison and represented himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary finding for fighting. The finding arose from a November 18, 2018 incident in which Lopez and inmate Ramirez were attacked by inmate Raper. Lopez was found guilty of the rules violation.
Lopez alleged that the finding violated due process and equal protection, denied him the right to defend himself, and resulted from a hearing officer’s falsification of the record. He stated that the parole board treated the guilty finding adversely and requested expungement of the disciplinary violation.
Jurisdictional analysis
The court explained that federal review of imprisonment is available through a habeas petition when the requested relief would affect the lawfulness or duration of custody. A civil-rights action, rather than a habeas petition, is appropriate when success would not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.
The court found that it lacked habeas jurisdiction because Lopez was serving an indeterminate life sentence with the possibility of parole, and expunging the disciplinary finding would not necessarily result in earlier release. Under California law, the parole board must consider relevant and reliable information, but a disciplinary infraction is only one factor and does not require either denial or grant of parole. The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that similar challenges to disciplinary findings affecting parole suitability did not belong in habeas proceedings.
Disposition
The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal was without prejudice to Lopez filing a new civil-rights action challenging the disciplinary decisions. The court denied a certificate of appealability because it found that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the petition was properly dismissed on this procedural ground.
The court directed the Clerk to correct the respondent’s last name from Robinson to Robertson, send Lopez two copies of a civil-rights complaint form, and close the file.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.