King v. Martinez, et al.

Filing 88

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Defendant's 84 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/12/2018. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within Twenty-One (21) Days. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MARIO KING,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

W.S. WADKINS,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20

Case No. 1:16-cv-00433-LJO-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ECF No. 84]

Plaintiff Mario King is a state prisoner and appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed on November
29, 2017.

21

I.

22

RELEVANT HISTORY

23
24
25
26

This action is proceeding against Defendant W.S. Wadkins for alleged due process violations
relating to a rules violation for fighting with another inmate.
Defendant Wadkins filed an answer to the complaint on August 18, 2016, and on August 23,
2016, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order.

27

As previously stated, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on November 29, 2017.

28

Plaintiff did not file an opposition and the time period to do so has expired. Accordingly, Defendant’s
1

1

motion for summary judgment is deemed submitted for review, without oral argument. Local Rule

2

110.

3

II.

4

LEGAL STANDARD

5

Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary judgment if

6

the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

7

judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (quotation marks omitted); Washington Mut. Inc. v.

8

U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party’s position, whether it be that a fact is disputed

9

or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including

10

but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials

11

cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot

12

produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted).

13

The Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required

14

to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031

15

(9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).

16

In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court does not make credibility

17

determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984 (quotation marks and

18

citation omitted), and it must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party

19

and determine whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes entry of judgment, Comite de

20

Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d at 942 (quotation marks and

21

citation omitted).

22

III.

23

DISCUSSION
Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations

24

A.

25

On October 25, 2015, Plaintiff was in institution placement when officer B. Martinez placed

26

Plaintiff in handcuffs and escorted him to the program office without justification or explanation.

27

Plaintiff was interrogated with questions initiated by law enforcement without justification for said

28
2

1

actions. During an unclothed search of Plaintiff, questions continued and when Plaintiff asked the

2

reason for the interrogation and restraint he was not given any information.

3

Plaintiff was issued a rules violation for fighting with another inmate. On November 23, 2015,

4

a rules violation hearing was conducted by W.S. Wadkins and evidence was presented. Plaintiff

5

offered witness statements which were disregarded by Wadkins. Wadkins stated that his officers had

6

no reason to lie. Plaintiff submits that there was not some evidence to support the finding of guilt.

7

B.

Statement of Undisputed Facts

8

1.

After speaking with Plaintiff on October 25, 2015, officer Martinez issued Plaintiff

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Rules Violation Report Log No. A-15-10-022. (Declaration of W. Wadkins (Wadkins Decl.) ¶ 8.)
2.

Plaintiff received a copy of Rules Violation Report Log No. A-15-10-022 on November

2, 2015. (Wadkins Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. A.)
3.

The hearing on Rules Violation Report Log No. A-15-10-022 occurred on November

23, 2015. (Wadkins Decl. ¶ 9.)
4.

Defendant Wadkins was the Senior Hearing Officer at the November 23, 2015 hearing.

(Wadkins Decl. ¶ 9.)
5.

Plaintiff was not assigned a staff assistant or an investigative employee at the

November 23, 2015 hearing. (Wadkins Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. A.)
6.

Defendant Wadkins reviewed the list of Plaintiff’s requested witnesses at the

November 23, 2015 hearing. (Wadkins Decl. ¶ 11.)
7.

The witnesses Plaintiff sought to present at the hearing were not present during officer

Martinez’s interview of Plaintiff. (Wadkins Decl. ¶ 11.)
8.

Defendant Wadkins found the requested witnesses did not have any relevant

information to the RVR. (Wadkins Decl. ¶ 11.)

24

9.

Officer Martinez’s interview of Plaintiff was not recorded. (Wadkins Decl. ¶ 12.)

25

10.

The evidence considered at the hearing was the Rules Violation Report Log No. A-15-

26

10-022, Plaintiff and inmate Knox’s CDC 7219 Medical Reports of Injury or Unusual Occurrence

27

and corresponding Medical Evaluation for SBI, CDCR 128C by Dr. Ugwueze. (Wadkins Decl. ¶ 13.)

28
3

1
2
3
4

11.

Defendant Wadkins prepared a final Rules Violation Report containing his findings on

December 18, 2017. (Wadkins Decl. ¶ 15.)
12.

Plaintiff received a final copy of Rules Violation Report Log No. A-15-10-022 on

December 29, 2015. (Wadkins Decl. ¶ 16.)

5

C.

Parties Arguments

6

Defendant argues that summary judgment should be entered in favor of him because the

7

undisputed facts demonstrate that Plaintiff was afforded all the procedural due process to which he

8

was entitled. In addition, the undisputed evidence establishes that sufficient evidence supported the

9

guilty finding. Furthermore, because Defendant complied with the disciplinary hearing procedures he

10
11
12

is entitled to summary judgment.
Plaintiff contends that he was denied the right to present witnesses and there was not some
evidence to support the finding of guilt.

13

D.

Analysis and Findings on Motion

14

“Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of

15

rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556

16

(1974). With respect to prison disciplinary proceedings, the minimum procedural requirements that

17

must be met are: (1) written notice of the charges; (2) at least 24 hours between the time the prisoner

18

receives written notice and the time of the hearing, so that the prisoner may prepare his defense; (3) a

19

written statement by the fact finders of the evidence they rely on and reasons for taking disciplinary

20

action; (4) the right of the prisoner to call witnesses in his defense, when permitting him to do so

21

would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals; and (5) legal assistance to

22

the prisoner where the prisoner is illiterate or the issues presented are legally complex. Id. at 563-71.

23

As long as the five minimum Wolff requirements are met, due process has been satisfied. Walker v.

24

Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1420 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515

25

U.S. 472 (1995).

26

In addition, “some evidence” must support the decision of the hearing officer, Superintendent

27

v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985), and the evidence must have some indicia of reliability, Cato v.

28

Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. 1987). The “some evidence” standard is not particularly stringent
4

1

and the relevant inquiry is whether “there is any evidence in the record that could support the

2

conclusion reached. . . .” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56.

3

As a result of the rules violation, Plaintiff was assessed a ninety-day credit forfeiture under

4

Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations section 3323, therefore, it is undisputed that Plaintiff

5

had a liberty interest in the good time credits. Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 484 (1995).

6

Due Process requires allowing witnesses when permitting the inmate to present witnesses will

7

not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566. The

8

prison official has the discretion to refuse to call witnesses, “whether it be for lack of relevance, lack

9

of necessity, or the hazards presented in individual cases.” Id.

10

1.

Procedural Due Process

11

Defendant submits undisputed evidence that Plaintiff was afforded all of the procedural due

12

process for which he was entitled. Plaintiff was given written notice of the charges on November 2,

13

2015, well before the November 23, 2015 hearing. (UF 2.) Plaintiff was also issued a written

14

statement by Defendant Wadkins which outlined the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the

15

finding of guilt. (UF 11, 12.) Defendant Wadkins declares that prior to the hearing Plaintiff requested

16

Officer Wimer as a witness, and during the hearing, Plaintiff requested several witnesses. (UF 6.)

17

However, Defendant Wadkins found that the witnesses identified did not have any relevant

18

information because they were not present during Officer Martinez’s interview. (UF 7, 8.) Defendant

19

Wadkins’s determination was reasonable given that the rules violation report was based on Plaintiff’s

20

confession to Officer Martinez that he had been fighting with another inmate. (Wadkins Decl. ¶ 8.)

21

Based on the undisputed evidence, Plaintiff received all of the procedural due process for which he

22

was due and Plaintiff’s claim to the contrary is without merit.

23

2.

Some Evidence to Support Guilty Finding

24

“Due process [in the context of disciplinary proceedings] requires only that there be some

25

evidence to support the findings made in the disciplinary hearing.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S.

26

445, 457 (1985). The “some evidence” review requires a determination of “whether there is any

27

evidence in the record that could support the conclusion.” Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th

28

Cir. 2003). In rendering its determination, the Court does not “examine the entire record,
5

1

independently assess witness credibility, or reweigh the evidence.” Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1287.

2

Evidence only must bear “some indicia of reliability” to be considered “some evidence.” Toussaint v.

3

McCarthy, 926 F.2d 800, 803 (1990).
As previously mentioned, the rules violation report indicated that Plaintiff self-admitted to

4
5

fighting with an inmate, and Defendant Wadkins relied on such admission, in part, in finding Plaintiff

6

guilty. Wadkins further considered the 7219 medical report of injury or unusual occurrence form for

7

inmate Knox which reflects that Knox had injuries consistent with a physical altercation. (Wadkins

8

Decl. ¶ 13.) Based on the foregoing evidence, there is some evidence to support the finding of guilt

9

and Defendant Wadkins is entitled to summary judgment.

10

IV.

11

RECOMMENDATIONS

12

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

13

1.

Defendant Wadkin’s motion for summary judgment be granted; and

14

2.

The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant.

15

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

16

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21)

17

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

18

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

19

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

20

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-

21

39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

25

January 12, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
6