Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01676/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01676-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OTMAR WITTINE,

NO. CIV. S-03-1676 LKK/PAN P

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

F.T. DESCHLER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 15,

2005, plaintiff filed his second amended complaint. On August 4,

2005, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

stating that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable

claim. While the findings and recommendations do not make it

clear, it appears that the complaint was dismissed because “it did

not allege an identified defendant” who “deprived plaintiff of a

right secured to him by the Constitution,” and because “[t]he 30-

////

Case 2:03-cv-01676-LKK -EFB Document 24 Filed 09/15/05 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

1 The findings and recommendations explains that plaintiff

claims a due process violation because time credits were forfeited

as a disciplinary measure after a hearing held more than thirty

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. 

2 For example, in addition to alleging that defendants failed

to hold his disciplinary hearing within thirty days, plaintiff also

alleges that defendants failed “to establish that due process was

afforded at the hearing in the form of a written notice of

declination of prosecution from the TCDA.” SAC at 5. 

2

day time requirement is a creature of state law.”1 As explained

below, the court declines to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations.

First, the second amended complaint does, in fact, set forth

the names of all the parties involved in the suit, as well as the

specific acts which plaintiff complains of. Second Amended

Complaint (“SAC”) at 2-4. Secondly, the findings and

recommendations fail to explain why plaintiff’s allegations would

be foreclosed because “[t]he 30-day time requirement is a creature

of state law.” Even assuming that the 30-day requirement does not

create a liberty interest, plaintiff appears to allege other acts

which violated his due process rights which were not discussed in

the findings in recommendations.2 

////

////

////

////

////

////

Case 2:03-cv-01676-LKK -EFB Document 24 Filed 09/15/05 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

For the reasons set forth above, the court DECLINES to adopt

the magistrate judge’s August 4, 2005 findings and recommendations

and REMANDS the case to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings consistent with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 14, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:03-cv-01676-LKK -EFB Document 24 Filed 09/15/05 Page 3 of 3