Damous Nettles v. Randy Grounds

The two appeals consolidated in this opinion require us to identify the appropriate standard for determining whether a *995 claim is cognizable under the federal habe-as statute. 1 Applying Skinner v. Switzer, we conclude that a Claim challenging prison disciplinary proceedings is cognizable in habeas only if it will “necessarily spell speedier release” from custody, meaning that the relief sought will either terminate custody, accelerate the future date of release from custody, or reduce the level of custody. 562 U.S. 521 , 131 S.Ct. 1289 , 1299 n. 13, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 86 , 125 S.Ct. 1242 , 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005) (Scalia, J., concurring)). To the extent our prior decisions held that a claim is cognizable in habeas if success on the claim is likely to, or has the mere potential to, affect the length of a petitioner’s confinement, they are overruled as irreconcilable with Skinner. See Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1151, 1157 (9th Cir.2011).

I

Damous Nettles and Matta Juan Santos, both prisoners in California state prisons, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their habeas…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAMOUS D. NETTLES, No. 12-16935 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 1:11-cv-01201-

AWI-JLT

RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, Senior District Judge, Presiding

MATTA JUAN SANTOS, No. 13-15050 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 1:12-cv-01651-

LJO-GSA

K. HOLLAND and JEFFREY BEARD,

Respondents-Appellees. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 6, 2014—San Francisco, California Filed May 28, 2015

Before: Sandra S. Ikuta, N. Randy Smith, and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Ikuta; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Murguia

SUMMARY*

Habeas Corpus

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of California state prisoner Damous Nettles’s habeas corpus petition seeking expungement of a prison rules violation report and…

concurring in part, and dissenting in part:

I disagree with the majority that the Supreme Court expressly “rul[ed] on the outer limits of habeas jurisdiction” in Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 , 131 S.Ct. 1289 , 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011). See Majority 17. Skinner addressed whether a prisoner’s civil rights action could proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and did not involve a federal habeas petitioner, much less the scope of relief available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . See Skinner, 131 S.Ct. at 1297 (“We take up -here only the questions whether there is federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction over Skinner’s complaint, and whether the claim he presses is cognizable under § 1983.” (emphasis added)). To accept the majority’s strained reading of Skimmer we have to believe that the Supreme Court, after leaving the issue open for over forty years, 1 conclusively determined the outer boundaries of habeas jurisdiction in a footnote of a case that did not involve a habeas petition. We likewise must ignore the Court’s explicit limitation that its decision was not intended to forge new law, see Skinner, 131 S.Ct. at 1299 n. 13 (stating that Skinner should not be interpreted to “mov[e] the line”…