Background
A disciplinary hearing found Adam Kendall guilty of possessing a prohibited controlled substance at High Desert State Prison. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation revoked 150 days of custody credits and suspended privileges. Kendall sought habeas relief under Penal Code section 2932(c)(1)(A), which requires CDCR, using reasonable diligence to investigate, to provide written notice within 15 days after discovering information leading to charges that may result in denial of credit. The superior court ordered the credits restored, and CDCR appealed.
Staff discovered suspected butane honey oil in Kendall's cell on February 18, 2020, and delivered it to the Department of Justice laboratory on February 26. The laboratory completed its report on April 2 and automatically uploaded it to a searchable web portal, without notifying the prison. Officers collected the specimen during their monthly trip on April 29 and then retrieved the report. Kendall received a rules violation report on May 13 and was found guilty at a June 6 hearing. The hearing officer's findings were not completed until July 17, 2020, and Kendall was provided with the finalized rules violation report signed by the Chief Disciplinary Officer on August 12, 2020.
Kendall signed his habeas petition on April 23, 2024, and filed it in the Amador County Superior Court, which transferred the petition to the Lassen County Superior Court on June 20, 2024. He explained that restricted law-library access and repeated transfers impeded his preparation until legal materials became available on tablets in July 2023. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court accepted monthly laboratory trips as reasonable but found that waiting to check the portal until retrieving evidence was not reasonably diligent. It suggested weekly checks and ordered restoration of the credits.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal rejected CDCR's timeliness objection. It explained that strict habeas timeliness rules developed for collateral attacks on convictions and sentences are not strictly applied to other prison claims. The finality concerns underlying those rules were absent, while delay principally threatened Kendall's own ability to benefit from restored credits. The court also found his lack of meaningful library access explained much of the delay and that filing nine months after access improved was not unreasonable.
On the merits, the court applied de novo review to the predominantly legal application of section 2932(c)(1)(A) to largely undisputed facts, while recognizing the weight given to CDCR's administrative construction. It held that reasonable diligence requires reasonable efforts, not perfection, the fastest available procedure, or best practices. The relevant question was therefore whether the prison's actual procedure was reasonable, not whether weekly portal searches could have produced earlier notice.
The court identified several reasons supporting the practice: retrieving the specimen ensured it remained available if an inmate sought further testing; weekly searches would consume about 26 hours annually and require repeated checks; and the 27-day interval here was modest compared with testing that commonly took two to six months. It also reasoned that waiting supported secure custody and compliance with the regulation requiring the final rules violation report to record the substance's disposition. The same considerations defeated the finding of deliberate delay. The court reversed and remanded with directions to issue a new order consistent with its decision.
Key Takeaways
- A prison disciplinary habeas petition is not necessarily subject to the strict timeliness approach used for collateral attacks on convictions and sentences.
- Penal Code section 2932(c)(1)(A) requires reasonable investigative diligence, not the quickest possible retrieval of laboratory results or adoption of best practices.
- The court treated monthly evidence trips followed by portal retrieval as reasonable in light of staffing demands, testing delays, evidence availability, and chain-of-custody concerns.
- The possibility that officers could have learned of results sooner did not establish either unreasonable investigation or deliberate delay on these facts.
- The appellate court reversed the credit-restoration order rather than merely modifying the superior court's reasoning.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes procedural challenges to prison discipline from habeas attacks on criminal judgments when assessing delay. It also gives practical effect to deference toward administrative procedures by evaluating reasonable diligence in context rather than imposing a weekly portal-checking rule.
Although unpublished, the opinion shows how resource demands, laboratory turnaround times, evidence availability, and regulatory disposition requirements can support a prison's reporting practice. Its holding is tied to these circumstances and does not declare every delayed retrieval reasonable.