McKevie v. State of California

Background

Demarius McKevie, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A habeas petition asks a federal court to review whether a person’s custody violates federal law. McKevie challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding involving a Rules Violation Report finding that he committed battery on a peace officer.

McKevie contended that officers assaulted him while he was restrained and fabricated the battery charge to cover up that assault. The disciplinary sentence included 15 months in segregated housing, loss of 150 days of credit, and loss of phone, canteen, and yard privileges. He also stated that a later classification hearing added three weeks to his custody, changing his release date from May 7, 2024, to September 6, 2024.

Claims and Analysis

McKevie asserted claims concerning excessive force, an allegedly false battery accusation, an unreasonable search based on race and the officers’ deliberate indifference, denial of medical and mental-health care, and violations of due process during the disciplinary proceeding. He said he was not allowed to speak with an attorney, could not present a video recording of his interview and statement, and was forced to plead guilty.

The court ruled that the excessive-force and medical- and mental-health-care claims could not be brought in a federal habeas action. The court stated that McKevie could bring those claims in a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain claims against state officials for violations of constitutional rights.

The court determined that the disciplinary-hearing due-process claim belonged in a habeas action because invalidating the hearing could require restoration of good-time credits and an earlier release. The court explained that, when good-time credits are at stake, due process generally requires advance written notice of the charges, an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, and a written statement of factual findings. The disciplinary findings must also be supported by some evidence. The court noted that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to confrontation, cross-examination, or counsel in these proceedings.

Liberally construing the petition, the court found that McKevie stated a cognizable claim that he was not allowed to present evidence at the hearing and was forced to plead guilty. “Cognizable” here means a claim that can proceed for consideration under the governing law; the court did not decide whether McKevie ultimately would prevail.

Order

Judge Trina Thompson granted McKevie’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court directed the respondent to file and serve, within 60 days, an answer showing cause why the petition should not be granted, together with relevant portions of the state record. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within that period.

The order also set deadlines for any response to a motion to dismiss and stated that McKevie must prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. The order terminated Docket No. 2. It did not decide the ultimate merits of McKevie’s due-process claim.