Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Hall v. Popovits

September 2, 2009

TIMOTHY HALL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. POPOVITS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $1.90 will be assessed by this order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than "naked assertions," "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other words, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

The complaint in this case presents three claims. First, plaintiff alleges that defendant Popovits violated plaintiff's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment during a disciplinary hearing at which plaintiff was found guilty of promoting gang activity. He claims the violation occurred when Popovits, the senior hearing officer, refused to allow certain evidence to be presented. Second, plaintiff alleges he has been harassed by unwarranted strip searches in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Third, he alleges a practice of pre-determined findings of guilt in disciplinary proceedings, which plaintiff characterizes as "an underground policy" created by defendant Haviland, the warden at CSP-Solano. See Compl., addendum at 2. This last charge is not alleged under any specific constitutional provision, but the court construes it as one averred as a violation of the right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974).

1. Refusal of Evidence at the Disciplinary Hearing

The disciplinary charge of promoting gang activity was brought against plaintiff after prison officials found three strips of paper, known as "wilas," secreted in the air vent over plaintiff's cell. The papers contained handwritten information about the "Nortendo Sodados" prison gang. At the hearing, plaintiff made three requests that are now the subject of his complaint: (1) he requested that the papers be subjected to fingerprint and handwriting analyses; (2) he requested a polygraph test; and (3) he requested that his cell mate, Librado Fortanel II, be called as a witness. Plaintiff claims that Popovits' refusals of these requests denied him the right to present evidence at a disciplinary hearing.

Even construing these allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the court finds that they present no arguable basis as a due process claim. As to the scientific tests and analyses that plaintiff requested, another district court in California has stated that

[c]courts confronting due process claims based on prison officials' denial of requests for fingerprinting and other scientific analyses have concluded that the minimal procedural guarantees prescribed by Wolff do not encompass a right to have evidence tested for fingerprints or subjected to similar scientific analyses.

Barboza v. Kelsey, 2008 WL 2512785 at *11 (C.D.Cal. 2008). Under Wolff, a prisoner has a due process right to present evidence that he has gathered himself, in his own defense of disciplinary charges. A prisoner does not have a due process right to scientific testing of that evidence or of other evidence that is presented against him. Similarly, there is no federal due process right to polygraph testing in defense of disciplinary charges. See Freitas v. Auger, 837 F.2d 806, 812 n.13 (8th Cir. 1988) (holding that under Wolff an inmate was not entitled to polygraph testing regarding whether he participated in planning or furthering escape); Miller v. Brown, 2007 WL 2512785, at 7-8 (D.N.J. 2007). Therefore, the complaint, to the extent it alleges a due process violation for refusing to allow any scientific or polygraph testing, will be dismissed.

As to plaintiff's request to call Fortanel to testify on his behalf, an inmate facing disciplinary proceedings does have the right to call witnesses. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566. However, this right is "circumscribed by the necessary 'mutual accommodation between institutional needs ... and the provisions of the Constitution.'" Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 321 (1976) (quoting Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556, 566). A prison disciplinary body may refuse to accept evidence for "irrelevance, lack of necessity, or the hazards presented in individual cases." Baxter, 425 U.S. at 321.

At the hearing, plaintiff presented a written statement by Fortanel, signed under penalty of perjury, in which Fortanel admitted the contraband papers were his and that plaintiff knew nothing about them. See Aff. of Librado Fortanel II (attached to the complaint at Exhibit A). According to the official ...


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.