In re Rigsby, F075680

In May 2015 PVSP officers found a 16-oz Folgers jar containing a pulpy "kicker" (precursor for inmate-made alcohol) on the bottom/ lower shelf of a two-inmate 6'×11' cell occupied by Christopher Rigsby and a cellmate.
The officer reported a strong odor of alcohol upon opening the jar; a sergeant later verified the substance as "kicker."
Rigsby denied knowledge or ownership; his cellmate told investigators Rigsby did not know about the item. Rigsby was not present when the search occurred.
A hearing officer found Rigsby guilty of possessing alcohol (constructive possession) and imposed a 30-day loss of privileges and forfeiture of credits; Rigsby exhausted administrative remedies and petitioned for habeas corpus.
The superior court granted the petition, concluding there was no evidence Rigsby knew of or could control the kicker (rejecting the officer’s claims about odor and visibility). The Warden appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rigsby)	Defendant's Argument (Warden/PVSP)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession	No evidence Rigsby knew of or controlled the kicker; proximity alone insufficient	Some evidence exists: item found in common cell area accessible to both inmates; officer testimony supports inference of knowledge/control	Reversed superior court; "some evidence" supports finding of constructive possession under Hill/Zepeda
Whether the kicker contained alcohol	Argued insufficient proof of alcohol content	Officer/sergeant verification and testimony established it was inmate-manufactured kicker (Rigsby did not contest on appeal)	Superior court found sufficiency on this point; not contested on appeal
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required	Superior court ordered and relied on hearing to resolve factual disputes	Warden disputed need, but did not press issue on appeal	Appellate court did not decide error in ordering hearing because it did not affect outcome
Availability of habeas review based on lost credits	Rigsby argued disciplinary loss of credits entitles him to due process/habeas	Warden initially argued murder conviction precluded credit loss claims but abandoned that argument on appeal	Court declined to address this abandoned jurisdictional argument

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) (prison disciplinary findings require only "some evidence" to satisfy due process)
In re Zepeda, 141 Cal.App.4th 1493 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (contraband in a common, accessible area of a two-inmate cell can supply "some evidence" of constructive possession)
In re Richards, 55 Cal.4th 948 (Cal. 2012) (standard of review: accept superior court’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence; apply law de novo)
Hamilton v. O’Leary, 976 F.2d 341 (7th Cir. 1992) (items found in shared cell may support inference one occupant possessed contraband)