Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Young v. Mandeville

March 16, 2009


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge



Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is what the court now construes as plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to defendant Chugg's interrogatory responses, although cumbersomely entitled "objections to defendant Chugg's request for extension of time to serve interrogatory responses; and objections to incomplete-inadequate interrogatory responses," filed on 4/17/08, to which an opposition was filed, on 5/12/08.*fn1

First Amended Complaint

The allegations on which plaintiff proceeds have been previously set forth:*fn2 On August 22, 2000, plaintiff was attacked by Inmate Stewart, older and more aggressive than plaintiff, in the C-Facility prison library. Plaintiff was holding a law library handbook and tried to ward off the inmate's aggressive action and keep possession of the handbook by blocking Stewart's hand with his arm. Defendant M.A. Chugg activated a personal alarm even though nothing disruptive was happening. Defendant Chugg then stated on the phone: "It was just a misunderstanding." When Correctional Counselor II Ember (not a defendant) yelled not to tell him it was just a misunderstanding, as officers stood watching everyone, defendant Chugg said: "one inmate touched the other just above the chest. The one inmate grabbed hold to [sic] the other inmate and began shaking him." Defendant Chugg pointed a finger at plaintiff, thus falsely accusing him of wrongdoing. First Amended Complaint (FAC), p. 6.

Plaintiff told defendant Chugg: "You need to tell the truth." Both Inmate Stewart and plaintiff were placed in holding cages; while Stewart was released after about thirty minutes, plaintiff was moved from the holding cage and wrongly housed in a hard cell located next to the C-Facility Watch Office, where he was isolated for 24 hours. The Correctional Captain (presumably, defendant Mandeville) prevented plaintiff from gathering documentary evidence by depriving him of an investigative employee at a 24-hour review. On August 23, 2004, defendant Captain R.

Mandeville issued a CDC-114-D, administrative segregation (ad seg) unit placement notice, omitting the name of any staff assistant and undermining the assignment of an investigative employee to interview staff and inmate witnesses about plaintiff's having been wrongly implicated in another's misconduct. At the Aug. 23, 2004, 24-hour review, plaintiff's request for witnesses was placed on the CDC-114-D form by defendant Mandeville but was accompanied by an (unspecified) "improper contradiction," which did not afford plaintiff investigative safeguards. Id.

Plaintiff was denied preparation for presentation of evidence prior to the initial classification hearing. Defendant Mandeville improperly refused to release plaintiff from isolation and/or ad seg and deprived him of procedural safeguards in the investigative process by not withdrawing the CDC-114-D, even though it was inaccurately completed, not permitting him an investigative employee. FAC, p. 7. Plaintiff claims that defendant Mandeville did not timely review the segregation order (within one working day of the ad seg placement), stating that plaintiff had "declined any investigative employee," when he had not, that "inmate waives right to 72 hours preparation time," when he had not. Id. Defendant Mandeville's deprivation of plaintiff's due process rights caused plaintiff to be held in 24-hour isolation detention and in 108 days of ad seg, which was unwarranted and constituted an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. FAC, p. 8.

On Aug. 30, 2000, a few minutes before the institutional classification committed (ICC) hearing on the segregation housing order, defendant Gasaway approached plaintiff in his holding cage. Plaintiff stated that the untimely assignment of defendant Gasaway as the assigned staff member meant that this defendant would be unable to assist with preparations for the hearing; plaintiff presented Gasaway with a request to seek a postponement on grounds that to provide plaintiff assistance, documentary evidence should have already been gathered prior to the hearing. When plaintiff presented a request for interview at the beginning of the ICC hearing, he did not receive a good faith response from the defendant chairperson Chastain with respect to his right to present witnesses and documentary evidence at the hearing or a postponement to permit the exercise of such right. FAC, p. 8. Defendant Mandeville had annotated the Inmate Request for Interview (in an undefined manner) and the ICC members prevented plaintiff from presenting witnesses or documentation, nor did they allow a postponement of the hearing. Defendants Mandeville and Chastain "purged" any investigative employee assignment for plaintiff, nor did defendant Gasaway provide plaintiff sufficient assistance, as plaintiff stood in the holding cage. Id. Defendants Mandeville, Chastain and Gasaway conspired to deprive plaintiff of his due process rights regarding the classification hearing. FAC, p. 9.

Plaintiff was issued a serious rules violation report (RVR) (Log No. C-00-08-060) by defendant Chugg, another member of the conspiracy, improperly accusing plaintiff of having engaged in "Battery on an inmate without serious injury," which was referred for felony prosecution. Defendant Chugg's actions were retaliation for plaintiff's use of the grievance system. On Oct. 17, 2000, plaintiff maintained his innocence at the RVR hearing, wherein defendant Chugg alleges plaintiff had placed his hands on Inmate Stewart's neck. Defendant Chugg's retaliatory falsehoods violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights, and resulted in plaintiff's 1-day confinement in isolation and 108-day confinement in ad seg, an atypical and significant hardship, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and in subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. FAC, p. 10.

Defendant Correctional Counselor Janice Mayfield used [] false information/documentation, on a CDC 128 G form dated 8/30/00 and CDC 629-A on 8/29/00 (which is not otherwise specified), to conceal the true evidence that plaintiff's due process and equal protection rights had been violated with regard to the ICC hearing and ad seg order. Defendant Chastain and the ICC participants offered false statements as to segregating plaintiff and as to reasons for plaintiff's not being present, deliberately denying him witnesses who would have contributed significant information at the ICC hearing. All of the defendants caused plaintiff to have been subjected to false charges and hearings that violated his due process rights, subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment. FAC, pp. 10-11.

Plaintiff alleges that he was "continuously provided insufficient law library access" with regard to photocopying and supply requests while at California State Prison-Sacramento (CSP-Sac). Plaintiff names no specific defendant for his various claims of denial of right of access to the courts by being deprived of copying services. Id., at 11-12. Notwithstanding plaintiff's vagueness in his amended complaint on this point, the court notes that defendant Chugg includes as one of the allegations plaintiff makes against her is that she refused to provide plaintiff with required copies of his habeas petition.*fn3 Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.

Order, filed on 2/19/08, pp. 2-5.

Motion to Compel

As noted, plaintiff primarily objects to the granting of the request for an extension of time for defendant Chugg, until April 21, 2008, to serve responses because the interrogatory responses by defendant Chugg had been served upon plaintiff as of April 4, 2008, which plaintiff demonstrates by appending the interrogatory responses with the proof of service attached. Objections, pp. 1-7; Exhibit B, p. 24. Defendant Chugg's request was ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.