Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01676/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01676-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Otmar Wittine,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 03-1676 LKK PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

F. T. Deschler, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff was a prisoner when he filed his complaint but now

is at liberty. He proceeds in forma pauperis and without

counsel. June 17, 2005, plaintiff filed a second-amended

complaint containing the same claim raised in his other

complaints.

I have reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A and find that it fails to state a cognizable claim.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must

allege an identified defendant deprived plaintiff of a right 

Case 2:03-cv-01676-LKK -EFB Document 21 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States

while acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.

42, 48-49 (1988). Due process entitles a prisoner facing

disciplinary measures and whose liberty interest is threatened to 

advance written notice of the charges, a hearing, written

findings and reasons for the disciplinary action taken and, when

it presents no security risk, permit the prisoner to call

witnesses and present evidence in his defense. Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-566 (1974). California prisoners

have a liberty interest in credits earned for good behavior. See

Wolff, 418 U.S. at 558; 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3043.

Plaintiff claims defendants denied him due process by

forfeiting time credits as a disciplinary measure after a hearing

held more than 30 days after the day the District Attorney

notified the California Department of Corrections he did not

intend to prosecute plaintiff based on the conduct for which

plaintiff was disciplined. The 30-day time requirement is a

creature of state law. See 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3316.

I find plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted.

I recommend this action be dismissed. See Lopez v. Smith,

203 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2000) (indigent prisoner proceeding

without counsel must be given leave to file amended complaint

unless the court can rule out any possibility that the plaintiff

could state a claim).

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

Case 2:03-cv-01676-LKK -EFB Document 21 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: August 4, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01676-LKK -EFB Document 21 Filed 08/05/05 Page 3 of 3