Robert Carlson v. Brian Birkholz

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California adopted a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in a federal prisoner’s habeas action challenging a disciplinary sanction for possessing a cell phone. The court granted the petitioner’s motion to file late objections, rejected the objections, granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss, and denied and dismissed the petition with prejudice. The court held that the disciplinary decision was supported by some evidence and that the challenged procedural and vagueness arguments did not warrant relief.

Holdings

1. The district court was not required to consider an argument that Carlson had not presented to the magistrate judge in either the petition or his opposition to the motion to dismiss.
2. The disciplinary decision was supported by more than sufficient evidence satisfying the some-evidence standard.
3. Even assuming an inability to present the alleged testimony was error, the error was harmless in light of the other evidence against Carlson.
4. The hearing officer was not required to credit Carlson's self-serving, uncorroborated assertion that Officer Simms told him he would not receive an incident report.
5. Carlson bore no burden of proof in the disciplinary proceeding; prison officials were required to present some evidence supporting the discipline, and they met that standard.
6. The prison rule prohibiting possession of hazardous tools, including portable telephones, was not unconstitutionally vague because it provided fair notice that possessing a cellphone could lead to sanctions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should consider Carlson's new due-process argument that a unit manager was not asked at the disciplinary hearing whether Carlson had ever been seen in physical possession of the cellphone.
2. Whether the disciplinary decision was supported by some evidence that Carlson possessed the cellphone.
3. Whether any inability to present the alleged testimony constituted prejudicial procedural due process error.
4. Whether the hearing officer was required to credit Carlson's uncorroborated assertion that an officer told him he would not receive an incident report.
5. Whether Carlson had been improperly required to prove that he did not possess the cellphone.
6. Whether the prison rule prohibiting possession of hazardous tools, including portable telephones, was unconstitutionally vague.

Disposition

dismissed