Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00497/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00497-4/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

The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that Long and 1

Valdez are defendants to this action. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WILSON, No. CIV S-07-0497-RRB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

J. BUTLER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 11),

filed on July 12, 2007. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking

relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Plaintiff names the following 12 individuals as defendants: Butler, Wiley,

Jackson, Magee, Sandy, Stewart, Fonville, Rodriguez, Brown, Long, Valdez, and Carey.1

Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and punitive

Case 2:07-cv-00497-JAM-CMK Document 12 Filed 08/16/07 Page 1 of 6
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

damages. Plaintiff claims violations of his constitutional rights resulting from a rules violation

report issued against him. Specific allegations as to each defendant are summarized below.

Plaintiff states that, on August 2, 2004, he was “hanging out with some religious

associates” on the prison recreation yard alongside a fence which is adjacent to an inmate

housing facility. According to plaintiff, defendant Butler approached the group and told them to

“get off the fence.” Plaintiff states that, when Butler asked for plaintiff’s identification card, he

responded that he did not have it with him because his pants had no pockets. Defendant Butler

then ordered plaintiff to “go to the Center Complex” and plaintiff states that he responded: “I’m

not going. I’m off the fence already.” Plaintiff alleges that defendant Butler then “took unlawful

and departmentally unauthorized measures of confiscating my bag of food items.” Plaintiff

states that he “instinctively” attempted to protect his items by reaching towards defendant Butler

to retrieve his bag. Plaintiff was later issued a rules violation report charging him with battery

on a correctional officer. According to the rules violation report, plaintiff made contact with

defendant Butler when he was attempting to retrieve his items. Plaintiff claims that defendant

Butler acted “maliciously to cause . . . hardship . . . .” 

Plaintiff states that defendant Wiley “designed his report to support a battery on a

peace officer (his friend . . . [defendant Butler]).” Specifically, plaintiff claims that defendant

Wiley falsely reported that he witnessed the incident when it is “evident by his report that he did

not witness the incident, but just wanted to support his co-worker.” Plaintiff alleges that

defendant Wiley’s report does not contain any mention of the bag of food items. According to

plaintiff, defendant Wiley’s allegedly false report denied his due process. 

Plaintiff states that defendant Jackson was responsible for reviewing the rules

violation report submitted by defendant Butler. According to plaintiff, defendant Jackson

ratified the false rules violation report, which did not comply with departmental regulations. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00497-JAM-CMK Document 12 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 6
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

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Magee conducted the investigation regarding the

rules violation report. Plaintiff claims that defendant Magee conducted the investigation with a

“predetermination of guilt” and altered witness statements. 

Plaintiff states that defendant Sandy conducted a prison disciplinary hearing on

the rules violation report on September 18, 2004. He states that, although plaintiff’s inmate

witness approached defendant Sandy to inform her that defendant Magee had falsified his

statements, defendant Sandy did nothing to correct the problem. Plaintiff also states that

defendant Sandy stopped the hearing after defendant Magee was caught in a lie in order “to

protect [defendant Magee] from further incriminating himself.” 

Plaintiff claims that defendant Stewart conducted another disciplinary hearing on

the rules violation report on February 4, 2005, and that, in the course of this hearing, defendant

Stewart allowed numerous violations of the regulations to occur. Specifically, plaintiff alleges

that defendant Stewart permitted defendant Butler to be present at the hearing and that, when

plaintiff asked questions, defendant Stewart would inaccurately rephrase them. 

Plaintiff states that defendant Fonville was his correctional counselor and that, on

March 3, 2005, she proposed a maximum security housing assignment as a result of plaintiff’s

being found guilty of the rules violation. Plaintiff claims that defendant Fonville made this

recommendation despite her knowledge of the procedural violations which had occurred during

his disciplinary hearing. 

Plaintiff claims that defendants Rodriguez and Brown, as a members of the

classification committee responsible for determining plaintiff’s housing status, allowed plaintiff

to be classified to maximum security as a result of the rules violation, despite his knowledge of

“procedural violations and mitigating factors.”

Plaintiff states that defendant Long was responsible for deciding his appeal of the

guilty finding and, despite the procedural problems, he affirmed the guilty finding. 

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00497-JAM-CMK Document 12 Filed 08/16/07 Page 3 of 6
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

4

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Valdez “circumvented [his] appeals by

systematically denying [his] appeals.”

Finally, as to defendant Carey, who was the prison warden at the time, plaintiff

claims that he was made aware of all the problems alleged above and did nothing to prevent

violations of plaintiff’s due process rights. Plaintiff claims that defendant Carey failed to

intervene to stop the violations and that he failed to provide an adequate appeals process. 

The first amended complaint appears to state a cognizable claim for relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations are proven, plaintiff

has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. The court, therefore, finds

that service is appropriate and will direct service by the U.S. Marshal without pre-payment of

costs. Plaintiff is informed, however, that this action cannot proceed further until plaintiff

complies with this order. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in

dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 11-110. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following 12 defendant(s): 

BUTLER, 

WILEY, 

JACKSON, 

MAGEE, 

SANDY, 

STEWART, 

FONVILLE, 

RODRIGUEZ, 

BROWN, 

LONG, 

VALDEZ, and

Case 2:07-cv-00497-JAM-CMK Document 12 Filed 08/16/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

CAREY;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form for each

defendant identified above, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the first amended

complaint filed July 12, 2007; and

3. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the

court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. 12 completed USM-285 form(s); and

d. 13 copies of the endorsed first amended complaint.

DATED: August 15, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00497-JAM-CMK Document 12 Filed 08/16/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WILSON, No. CIV S-07-0497-RRB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs.

J. BUTLER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order:

 1 completed summons form;

 completed USM-285 form(s); and

 copies of the first amended complaint filed on July 12, 2007.

DATED: __________________ ____________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-00497-JAM-CMK Document 12 Filed 08/16/07 Page 6 of 6