Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05625/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05625-0/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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEVERON RATLIFF, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. VOONG, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-05625-JCS (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this federal civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he raises claims against the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) for altering and refusing to 

correct an incorrect record of his crimes. After reviewing his allegations pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court DISMISSES the complaint.1

 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that 

is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 

 

1 Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Compl. at 4.) The magistrate judge, 

then, has jurisdiction to issue this order, even though defendants have not been served or 

consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th 

Cir. 1995). 

Case 3:15-cv-05625-JCS Document 7 Filed 04/07/16 Page 1 of 5
2 

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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 

(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has 

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). 

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

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges his CDCR fingerprint card incorrectly states he was convicted in 

state court of conspiracy to commit second degree robbery (Cal. Penal Code § 212.5). 

(Compl. at 6; Ex. 1.) He was, he claims, convicted only of conspiracy to commit a crime 

(id. § 182(a)) after he pleaded guilty to such a charge in exchange for having the robbery 

charges dismissed. (Compl. at 3-4.) This record of a nonexistent conviction was used to 

enhance a subsequent sentence when a state superior court read the fingerprint card, which 

was part of the record submitted to the court for sentencing. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff filed 

formal grievances to have the card corrected, but his requests were denied. (Id. at 7-8.) 

Plaintiff has not stated a claim that his substantive due process rights were violated. 

The inaccuracy of records compiled or maintained by the government is not, standing 

alone, sufficient to state a claim of constitutional injury under the Due Process Clause. See 

Case 3:15-cv-05625-JCS Document 7 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 5
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711-714 (1976); Reyes v. Supervisor of DEA, et al., 834 F.2d 

1093, 1097 (1st Cir. 1987) (no due process claim for false information maintained by 

police department); Pruett v. Levi, 622 F.2d 256, 258 (6th Cir. 1980) (mere existence of 

inaccuracy in FBI criminals files does not state constitutional claim). 

Plaintiff also has not stated a claim that his procedural due process rights were 

violated. Because California has created regulations from which a protected interest in 

accurate criminal records could arise, a court must ask (1) whether the regulations creating 

the right to accurate criminal records narrowly restrict the power of prison officials to 

impose a deprivation of accurate records, and (2) whether the deprivation suffered due to 

the denial of accurate records is one of “real substance.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 

477-87 (1995). 

An inmate questioning the accuracy of any material contained in a record of his 

criminal history must file a written request with the agency holding the record. See Cal. 

Penal Code § 13324(a). After a formal request and denial by the agency, the inmate must 

refer the matter to administrative adjudication in accord with the rules of the local 

governing body. See Cal. Penal Code § 13324(c). These regulations do not contain 

substantive predicates or mandatory language requiring any specific outcome when a 

determination on a request to amend information in a person’s criminal record is made. 

The regulations state no criteria, for example, which must be found before a request will be 

granted or denied. A provision that merely provides procedural requirements, even if 

mandatory, cannot provide the basis for a constitutionally protected liberty interest. See

Kentucky Dep’t of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 461-62 (1989); Smith v. 

Noonan, 992 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir. 1993). Because the statutory language does not meet 

the first prong of the Sandin test, no protected liberty interest requiring constitutional 

protection is created. 

Because there is no substantive or procedural due process right to have correctly 

maintained records, plaintiff’s section 1983 claims necessarily fail. 

Case 3:15-cv-05625-JCS Document 7 Filed 04/07/16 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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 

27 

28 

pla

app

con

Wh

and

§ 1

(C

Co

cla

def

Da

Also, t

aintiff’s grie

propriate.” 

nspiracy to 

hen persons

d to the sam

182(a). In c

ompl., Ex. 2

ode § 213(a)

Theref

aim would f

The co

fendants, an

IT IS S

ated: April

he fingerpr

evance, the 

 (Compl., E

commit a f

s conspire t

me extent as

conformity 

2 at 5-6), w

)(2); id., Ex

fore, even if

fail on the m

omplaint is D

nd close the

SO ORDER

l 7, 2016

rint card is n

“entry of P

Ex. 3.) It is

felony (Cal.

to commit a

s is provide

with this, th

which was th

x. 4). 

f plaintiff ha

merits. This

DISMISSE

e file. 

RED.

4

not inaccura

PC 212.5(B)

 appropriat

. Penal Cod

a felony, “th

d for the pu

he superior 

he lower ter

ad a due pro

s federal civ

CONCLU

ED. The Cle

 

ate. As stat

) Robbery 2

te because p

de § 182(a))

hey shall be

unishment o

court impo

rm for a rob

ocess right 

vil rights ac

USION

erk shall en

________

JOSEPH 

 Chief Ma

ted in the C

2nd on the F

plaintiff wa

), which wa

e punishable

of that felon

osed a sente

bbery convi

in having c

ction is DIS

nter judgme

__________

C. SPERO

agistrate Jud

CDCR respo

Fingerprint

s convicted

as in this ca

e in the sam

ny.” Cal. P

ence of 2 ye

iction, (Cal

correct reco

SMISSED. 

ent in favor 

_________

O 

dge 

onse to 

t Card is 

d of 

se, robbery

me manner 

Penal Code 

ears, 

. Penal 

ords, his 

 

of 

_

. 

Case 3:15-cv-05625-JCS Document 7 Filed 04/07/16 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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 

27 

28 

D

M

Dis

sai

dep

rec

De

Co

P.O

Sol

Da

DEVERON R

v. 

M. VOONG, 

I, the un

strict Court, 

That on

d copy(ies) i

positing said

ceptacle loca

everon Ratli

rrectional Tr

O. Box 689 

ledad, CA 9

ated: April 7,

RATLIFF, 

Plaintiff, 

et al., 

Defendants

ndersigned, 

Northern Di

n April 7, 20

in a postage 

d envelope in

ated in the Cl

ff ID: P-175

raining Faci

 ZW-312 

3960 

, 2016 

UNITED

NORTHER

s. 

hereby certi

istrict of Cal

16, I SERVE

paid envelo

n the U.S. M

lerk's office.

543 

lity

5

D STATES D

RN DISTRIC

fy that I am 

lifornia. 

ED a true an

ope addressed

Mail, or by pla

.

Su

Cl

By

K

H

DISTRICT C

CT OF CALI

Case No. 1

CERTIFIC

an employe

nd correct co

d to the pers

acing said co

usan Y. Soon

lerk, United

y:_________

Karen Hom, D

Honorable JO

COURT 

IFORNIA 

15-cv-05625

CATE OF S

ee in the Offi

opy(ies) of th

son(s) herein

opy(ies) into

ng 

d States Distr

___________

Deputy Clerk

OSEPH C. SP

5-JCS 

SERVICE 

ice of the Cl

he attached, 

nafter listed, 

o an inter-off

rict Court 

_______ 

k to the 

PERO 

erk, U.S. 

by placing 

by 

ffice delivery

Case 3:15-cv-05625-JCS Document 7 Filed 04/07/16 Page 5 of 5