United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE DOCKET NO. 16
M. CHEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Roberson, an inmate at the Kern Valley State Prison, filed
this pro se prisoner's civil rights action
seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His amended
complaint (Docket No. 16) is now before the Court for review
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
amended complaint, Mr. Roberson alleges the following:
Roberson received a rule violation report (RVR) for
participating in a riot on April 22, 2012. He was not guilty
of the infraction, and maintained his innocence in the
disciplinary hearing was held on June 1, 2012, at which Mr.
Roberson was found guilty. He was assessed a 90-day credit
forfeiture and was referred to the institutional
classification committee (ICC) for review and a possible
security housing unit (SHU) term assessment. At the ICC
hearing on July 19, 2012, the ICC imposed a 5-month SHU term
for the April 22, 2012 riot, plus an indeterminate
SHU term (with a recommendation that Mr. Roberson be
transferred to the SHU at Corcoran or the SHU at
CCI-Tehachapi) because he had received more than one RVR for
misconduct of a similar nature, i.e., the RVR for the April
22, 2012 riot, and an RVR for participating in another riot
on January 20, 2011. (Docket No. 16 at 7; Docket No. 16-3 at
Roberson appealed the disciplinary decision on the RVR for
the April 22, 2012 riot. His appeal was granted in part and
the original RVR was vacated with directions to re-issue and
re-hear the RVR. The decision on his inmate appeal did not
vacate or otherwise undo the indeterminate SHU term that
already had been assessed. The inmate appeal was decided on
July 19, but Mr. Roberson did not receive the decision until
August 6, 2012. Mr. Roberson asked, and was told by a
correctional counselor that “most likely” Mr.
Roberson would be issued a new administrative segregation
placement notice (also known as a CDCR-114D) and a new ICC
hearing as a result of the administrative appeal decision.
(Docket No. 16 at 8.)
Mr. Roberson was “endorsed” to the Corcoran SHU
on July 30, 2012, “because no one knew that [he] was
going to be successful on the appeal . . . and [that the
original RVR] would be vacated.” (Id.) Mr.
Morris had not yet received a new CDCR-114D administrative
segregation placement notice or a new ICC hearing after the
original RVR was vacated.
for the April 22, 2012 riot was re-issued on August 14, 2012.
Mr. Roberson was found guilty on the re-issued RVR at a
hearing on September 6, 2012. (Id. at 9-11.)
learning that he was scheduled to be transferred to the
Corcoran SHU, Mr. Roberson asked several correctional staff
members at Salinas Valley to prevent his transfer. Defendants
Garcia, Hughes and Lopez failed to prevent his transfer,
although Mr. Roberson had alerted them to his problem, i.e.,
that he was being transferred for a SHU term that should have
been vacated when the original RVR for the April 22, 2012
riot was vacated.
Roberson arrived at the Corcoran SHU in September 2012, and
had his initial SHU review on September 19, 2012, before an
ICC at that facility. Mr. Roberson explained that his
placement was incorrect because the original RVR for the
April 22, 2012 riot had been vacated. The ICC hearing
concluded with committee member Mascarenas stating that she
would look into the matter and with Mr. Roberson remaining in
the SHU. At an ICC hearing on October 31, 2012, committee
member Mascarenas stated that the ICC would vacate the SHU
term that had been imposed on July 19, 2012 for the original
RVR, and refer the case to a CSR for a proposed 6- month SHU
term for the re-issued RVR. Mr. Roberson tried to talk to CDW
Sandor at the ICC about the modification order but CDW Sandor
refused to listen to him and made him leave the ICC hearing.
On or about October 31, 2012 or December 5, 2012, the ICC
determined that earlier concerns had been addressed and that
the corrected indeterminate SHU term remained appropriate.
Corcoran SHU was significantly more restrictive than Mr.
Roberson's administrative segregation housing at Salinas
Valley. (Id. at 20.) While at the Corcoran SHU, the
conditions he experienced included the following: he was
unable to visit with friends and family members; some of his
property was confiscated, destroyed or restricted; some
unidentified medical treatment was denied; he was unable to
attend church, school or work; and he contracted hepatitis A
and B from the barber clippers he used to cut his hair.
Roberson filed several inmate appeals about several different
decisions. His inmate appeals were unsuccessful.
federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the
court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any
claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
Id. at § ...