United States District Court, E.D. California
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December
8, 2016, the undersigned dismissed plaintiff's complaint
with leave to amend. (ECF No. 8.) Pending before the court is
plaintiff's amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) For the
reasons stated herein, the amended complaint is dismissed
with leave to amend.
as defendants are Warden Macomber, Associate Warden Eldridge,
Correctional Counselor Hontz, Captain Roth, Correctional
Officer Masterson and Reames.
alleges that on September 3, 2014, defendant Macomber told
plaintiff that defendant Roth had a “personal
problem” with plaintiff. (Id. at 5.) On
September 4, 2014, plaintiff was involved in an incident on
the yard. (Id.) Plaintiff suffered a broken jaw
after fighting with two other inmates. (Id. at 5,
7.) Defendant Roth allegedly placed plaintiff in
administrative segregation (“ad seg”) without
medical attention and filed charges against plaintiff.
(Id. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Roth
released the other two inmates involved in the incident from
their cages without placing them in ad seg pending an
investigation, which would have been normal procedure.
alleges that he filed emergency 602s regarding his placement
in ad seg and requesting medical attention. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that he wrote to defendant Macomber but was
“put off” to someone else. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to an
Institutional Classification Committee (“ICC”)
after his placement in ad seg, in violation of regulations.
(Id.) Plaintiff alleges that every inmate has the
right to hear why they are being charged and placed in ad
alleges that on October 18, 2014, he filed a grievance
challenging his placement in ad seg. (Id.) Plaintiff
alleges that defendant Hontz came to ad seg to speak with
plaintiff regarding the grievance. (Id.) Plaintiff
alleges that he pointed out the errors in the paperwork that
was filed to place him in ad seg. (Id.) Plaintiff
alleges that defendant Hontz told plaintiff, “We'll
have to bring you back to committee and correct the
charges.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff alleges that
defendant Hontz also said, “We only put [plaintiff]
here (ad seg) for a while, so you act right on the
yard.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant
Hontz knew that the paperwork was false and asked plaintiff
to drop the grievance. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that
he was held in ad seg from September 4, 2014, to October 9,
alleges that defendant Eldridge heard the 602 that plaintiff
filed on October 18, 2014. (Id.) Defendant Eldridge
allegedly filed a false statement and allowed the ad seg
placement order to stand. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges
that defendant Eldridge allowed defendant Roth's personal
vendetta against plaintiff to continue. (Id.)
alleges that defendant Masterson filed false (disciplinary)
charges against plaintiff based on the September 4, 2014
incident. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff alleges that
defendant Masterson falsely stated that plaintiff was the
problem in the incident. (Id.)
alleges that defendant Reames knew that defendant Masterson
was going to file a false report against plaintiff based on
the September 4, 2014 incident. (Id. at 6.)
Plaintiff alleges claims that on August 25, 2014, defendant
Masterson falsely charged plaintiff with possessing a knife.
(Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant
Reames investigated this charge and found no merit it to.
alleges that defendant Reames knew that the charges based on
the September 4, 2014 incident were false because defendant
Masterson had filed false charges against him on August 25,
2014. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that on September 4,
2014, defendant Reames told plaintiff, “If you
don't talk up now, Masterson is going to get you.”
(Id. at 6.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Reames
failed to report defendant Masterson's unprofessional
Due Process Claims Based on Placement in Ad Seg and
Disciplinary Charges Plaintiff alleges that defendant
Roth placed plaintiff in ad seg on September 4, 2014, and
denied him medical care because defendant Roth had a
“personal problem” with plaintiff. Plaintiff
appears to allege that defendants Hontz, Eldridge and
Masterson conspired with defendant Roth to
“continue” defendant Roth's
“vendetta” against him by filing false
disciplinary charges and apparently ordering plaintiff's
retention in ad seg.
is no due process right to be free from false disciplinary
charges. The falsification of a disciplinary report does not
state a standalone constitutional claim. See Luster v.
Amezcua, 2017 WL 772141 at *5 (E.D. Cal. 2017).
Specifically, “the fact that a prisoner may have been
innocent of disciplinary charges brought against him and
incorrectly held in administrative segregation does not raise
a due process issue. The Constitution demands due process,
not error-free decision-making.” Jones v.
Woodward, 2015 WL 1014257, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (citing
Ricker v. Leapley, 25 F.3d 1406, 1410 (8th ...