A. Cancellation of Williams's Lost-Property Appeal
On April 10, 2014,2 Williams transferred to Donovan from the CMF. One week
later, prison staff provided Williams with his personal property. One of the items, a
television, was confiscated as contraband.
Williams filed an inmate appeal (lost-property appeal)─assigned log No. RJD-A-
14-1831 for tracking purposes─alleging that following the transfer of his personal
property from CMF to Donovan, he found some of the property was damaged or missing.
He requested that CDCR "accept liability" for his loss.
The Donovan appeals coordinators rejected Williams's lost-property appeal,
asserting he had failed to follow CDCR's regulations. Specifically, the appeals
1 The following facts, which are primarily taken from the Attorney General's return to Williams's petition and are supported by the exhibits attached to the petition and the return, are undisputed. Williams states in his traverse that he "agrees with respondent's factual background of proceedings set forth at pages 3-6 of [the] return."
2 All further dates are to calendar year 2014. 2
coordinators─citing California Code of Regulations, title 15,3 sections 3084.3 and
3084.6, subdivisions (b)(7) and (12)─found that Williams (1) failed to include the
original inmate-request form (CDCR Form 22 (the inmate-request form)) and the
property inventory form (CDCR Form 1083) after the prison gave him his property on
April 17; (2) improperly attached dividers and tabs to the appeal; and (3) needed to
remove extraneous paper.
Williams resubmitted his rejected lost-property appeal and separately submitted an
inmate-request form with a copy of his appeal explaining why he could not include the
original inmate-request form and the property-inventory form regarding his allegedly lost
or damaged property. The appeals coordinators rejected the appeal on the same grounds.
Williams resubmitted his rejected lost-property appeal a second time. The appeal
coordinators found he needed to attach the property-inventory form with his original
signature, and he needed to remove the "ducat, list of property" and the dividers and tabs
attached to his appeal. The appeals coordinators did not reference the inmate-request
form. They also notified Williams that his repeated failure to follow instructions could
lead to the cancellation of his appeal.
Williams resubmitted his rejected lost-property appeal a third time. The appeals
coordinators cancelled the appeal based on Williams's repeated failure to comply with
CDCR's regulations and the appeals coordinators' instructions, including Williams's
failure to remove the property list and his failure to attach the property-inventory form
3 All further regulatory references are to the California Code of Regulations, title 15. 3
and any inmate-request forms. The appeals coordinators advised Williams he could file
an appeal challenging the cancellation of his lost-property appeal, which he did.
In this second appeal (cancellation appeal)─assigned log. No. RJD-A-14-2426
─Williams alleged his lost-property appeal was improperly cancelled because the appeals
coordinators should have transferred the lost-property appeal to the CMF, and because he
had informed the appeals coordinators why he could not provide the original inmate-
request form to his lost-property appeal. In support of his cancellation appeal, Williams
attached inmate request forms, dated June 1 and June 8, which indicated he told the
appeals coordinators he could not provide the original inmate-request form or the
property-inventory form to his lost-property appeal.
The appeals coordinators rejected, and then cancelled, Williams's cancellation
appeal on the ground he repeatedly failed to comply with CDCR's regulations and the
appeal coordinators' instructions.
B. Williams's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
1. Petition, informal response, order to show cause, and appointment of counsel
After Williams filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the superior court,
which was denied,4 he filed, in propria persona, a petition for writ of habeas corpus in
this court seeking to compel the respondent5 to "process [his lost-property appeal] by
4 We need not, and do not, further discuss the habeas corpus proceeding Williams commenced in the superior court because he has commenced an original habeas corpus proceeding in this court by filing the pending petition.
5 Williams identifies the respondent as "Daniel Paramo, Warden of [Donovan]." 4
forwarding the appeal to CMF-Appeals Office in accordance with [section 3084.9[,
subdivision] (f)(2)." Williams alleges the appeals coordinators at Donovan violated his
due process rights and his rights under CDCR regulations by improperly cancelling his
lost-property appeal.
After the Attorney General filed an informal response on respondent's behalf, this
court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested by Williams should not be
granted. This court appointed counsel for Williams and directed Williams to file a
supplemental petition.
2. Williams's supplemental petition
In his supplemental petition, Williams seeks an order "direct[ing] [CDCR] to
entertain [his lost-property] appeal on the merits" and to "provide [him] with the needed
form 1083 [(property-inventory form)] of April 17, 2014, when his property was received
at [Donovan]." Williams argues (1) his petition for writ of habeas corpus is "the proper
vehicle for [him] to obtain review of his grievances," (2) he "has effectively exhausted his
administrative remedies as the actions of the [CDCR] in canceling his appeal have
effectively placed him in a position where he no longer has a remedy," and (3) the
appeals coordinators' decision to "cancel [his lost-property] appeal based upon failure to
provide a form that was simply unavailable to [him] constitutes an abuse of discretion."
3. Attorney General's return
In the return the Attorney General argues Williams "does not have a protected
liberty interest in how his inmate appeals are processed," and thus his petition "fails to
establish that prison officials infringed on a liberty interest protected under the due
5
process clause." The Attorney General further asserts Williams's petition is "also barred
because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies," and "even if a due process right
exists, the appeals coordinators properly exercised their discretion to cancel Williams's
appeal because he failed to comply with the [CDCR] regulations."
4. Williams's traverse
In his traverse Williams contends that "habeas corpus is the proper vehicle by
which to obtain review of his claims" because he "is in custody[,] which meets the
fundamental prerequisite for habeas corpus jurisdiction." He also contends he "has
exhausted his administrative remedies as the actions of the [CDCR] in cancelling his
appeal do not comply with the rules and effectively placed [him] in a position where he
has no remedy. Williams further contends that, "[g]iven the totality of the circumstances,
the appeal[s] coordinator[s'] decision to cancel [his] final property appeal was an abuse of
discretion."
DISCUSSION
Williams contends he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because the appeals
coordinators at Donovan violated his due process rights and his rights under CDCR
regulations by improperly cancelling his lost-property appeal in which he requested that
prison officials "accept liability" for various items of his personal property he claims
were lost or damaged when he was transferred to Donovan from the CMF. The Attorney
General argues that "[p]risoners do not have a protected liberty interest in the prison's
administrative appeals process either under the federal due process clause or through a
state-created liberty interest." In response, Williams asserts "[h]abeas corpus is the
6
proper vehicle [for him] to obtain review of his claims" because (1) he "is in custody[,]
which meets the fundamental prerequisite for habeas corpus jurisdiction"; and (2)
"[p]rison conditions and administrative decisions arising after judgment are appropriate
for consideration pursuant to a petition for writ of habeas corpus."
Williams's contention and assertions are unavailing. "The right to file a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus is guaranteed by the state Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I,
§ 11), and regulated by statute ([Pen. Code,] § 1473 et seq.)." (In re Harris (1993) 5
Cal.4th 813, 824-825.) "The function of the writ of habeas corpus is solely to effect
'discharge' from unlawful restraint, though the illegality in respect to which the discharge
from restraint is sought may not go to the fact of continued detention but may be simply
as to the circumstances under which the prisoner is held." (In re Chessman (1955) 44
Cal.2d 1, 5-6, italics added.) Thus, for example, habeas corpus jurisdiction has been
expanded to encompass challenges to illegal conditions of confinement such as "alleged
mistreatment or illegal treatment of prisoners inside penal institutions." (Frias v.
Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 919, 920, fn. 1; see also In re Estevez (2008) 165
Cal.App.4th 1445, 1461 ["alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment arising from
inadequate medical care may be brought to courts' attention in California by means of a
petition for writ of habeas corpus"].)
In Sandin v. Conner (1995) 515 U.S. 472 (Sandin), the United States Supreme
Court held that an alleged deprivation occasioned by prison conditions or a prison
regulation does not reach protected liberty interest status requiring procedural due
process protection unless it imposes an "atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in
7
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." (Id. at p. 484; see Wilkinson v. Austin
(2005) 545 U.S. 209, 223 ["After Sandin, it is clear that the touchstone of the inquiry into
the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions
of confinement is not the language of regulations regarding those conditions but the
nature of those conditions themselves 'in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison
life.'"].)
Here, Williams acknowledges his habeas corpus petition challenges a condition of
his prison confinement. As noted, he specifically challenges the manner in which the
Donovan appeals coordinators processed his lost-property appeal. However, he has
failed to meet his burden of showing the manner in which the appeals coordinators
exercised their discretion in processing his lost-property appeal "present[s] the type of
atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably create a liberty
interest" (Sandin, supra, 515 U.S. at p. 486). A prison inmate's "claimed loss of a liberty
interest in the processing of his [administrative] appeals does not satisfy this standard,
because inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance
procedure. (Ramirez v. Galaza (9th Cir. 2003) 334 F.3d 850, 860; accord, Mann v.
Adams (9th Cir. 1988) 855 F.2d 639, 640.)
"[T]o hold as we are urged to do that any substantial deprivation imposed by
prison authorities triggers the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause would
subject to judicial review a wide spectrum of discretionary actions that traditionally have
been the business of prison administrators . . . ." (Meachum v. Fano (1976) 427 U.S. 215,
225.)
8
Because Williams's challenge to the manner in which the appeals coordinators
processed his lost-property appeal does not implicate any liberty interest protected by the
due process clause, we conclude his petition for writ of habeas corpus does not meet the
habeas corpus jurisdictional requirements of California law.6 Accordingly, his petition
must be denied.
DISPOSITION
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
NARES, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
McINTYRE, J.
6 In light of our conclusion, we need not, and do not, address Williams's remaining contentions on appeal. 9
Filed 10/23/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re STEVEN G. WILLIAMS D066887
on (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. HSC11454) Habeas Corpus. ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION FOR PUBLICATION
THE COURT:
The opinion in this case filed October 7, 2015, was not certified for publication. It
appearing the opinion meets the standards for publication specified in California Rules of
Court, rule 8.1105(c), the request pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1120(a)
for publication is GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the opinion meets the standards for publication
specified in California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c); and
ORDERED that the words "Not To Be Published In the Official Reports"
appearing on page 1 of said opinion be deleted and the opinion herein be published in the
Official Reports.
NARES, Acting P. J. Copies to: All parties
10
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a prison inmate does not have a protected liberty interest in the administrative grievance process, and therefore a challenge to the processing of such appeals does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for a writ of habeas corpus.
Issues
Does a prison inmate have a protected liberty interest in the administrative appeal process?
Does a challenge to the processing of an inmate's lost-property appeal satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for a writ of habeas corpus under California law?
Disposition. denied
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Williams has failed to demonstrate he has a protected liberty interest in the prison's administrative lost-property appeal process”