Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02127/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02127-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINTON SHORTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2127 DFL DAD P

vs.

TERESA SCHWARTZ, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $17.53 will be assessed by this

order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to

collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the

Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the

Case 2:05-cv-02127-RRB-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 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

 On January 26, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled, “Request for Consolidation of 1

filing fee’s [sic] and Payment,” in which he requests that the filing fee for this case and a case

that he is pursuing on appeal with the Ninth Circuit be “consolidated.” There is no authority for

such consolidation of filing fees. Plaintiff’s request will be denied.

2

preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be 1

forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s

account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

Case 2:05-cv-02127-RRB-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 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

 15 CCR § 3043.4 provides: 2

An inmate eligible to earn worktime credit who refuses a full-time

qualifying assignment, or is placed on non-credit earning status

(Work Group C) by a classification committee for frequent

work/training violations, shall not receive a worktime credit

reduction from their sentence until the inmate agrees to accept a

qualifying assignment.

3

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

The allegations set forth in plaintiff’s complaint may be summarized as follows. 

On March 30, 2005, plaintiff was issued a rule violation report for possession of contraband

consisting of ten “rolled cigarettes.” (Compl. at 4.) On April 16, 2005, plaintiff was found guilty

of the rule violation and was assessed thirty-days loss of behavioral credits and ninety-days loss

of yard, gym and telephone privileges. (Id.) On June 2, 2005, plaintiff appeared before the Unit

Classification Committee and was unassigned from his housekeeper position, placed in work

group “C,” and re-housed in administrative segregation as a general population inmate. (Id. at 4,

6.) Plaintiff filed an appeal on June 6, 2005, but it was returned to him with instructions that he

was required to attach the CDC-128G and rule violation disposition to the appeal. (Id. at 4-5.) 

On June 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a second appeal seeking to obtain a copy of his rule violation

disposition. (Id. at 5.) After plaintiff received the rule violation disposition, he withdrew the

second appeal and re-submitted his original appeal on July 20, 2005. (Id.) The appeal was

rejected both as duplicative and because the appeal was not filed within the 15-day time limit for

filing a grievance. (Id.) 

Based upon these factual allegations, plaintiff advances the following seven

claims: (1) plaintiff’s placement in work group “C” was arbitrary and in violation of his rights to

due process and equal protection, and constituted cruel and unusual punishment; (2) plaintiff’s

right to due process created under California Code of Regulations §§ 3000, 3043.4 and 2

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02127-RRB-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 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

 15 CCR § 3044(b)(5)(A) provides: 3

An inmate who refuses to accept or perform in a work/training

assignment, or who is deemed a program failure as defined in

Section 3000, and who is placed on non-credit earning status by a

classification committee shall earn zero worktime credits.

4

3044(5)(a) were violated when plaintiff was placed in work group C and re-housed; (3) 3

plaintiff’s equal protection right under the Fifth Amendment were violated based on “policy and

procedures established pursuant to CCR § 3000, 3043.4 and 3044(5)(a);” (4) defendants “acted

with impunity and omnipotent disregard for policy and procedures” when plaintiff was

unassigned and placed in a different work group; (5) defendants acted with “callous indifference”

when they changed plaintiff’s work group and yard privileges; (6) plaintiff’s right to due process

were violated when his appeal challenging the disciplinary was denied as duplicative and

untimely; and (7) plaintiff’s rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated when defendants

obstructed or denied plaintiff his right to equal protection. (Id. at 6-11.) Plaintiff seeks

unspecified monetary and punitive damages, costs, “Judicial Correction and Oversight,” and an

order that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and California Medical Facility

“cease the practice described herein.” (Id. at 3.)

The court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to various educational or vocational programs. 

Although California has created a sentence credit scheme in exchange for performance in a work,

training or education program, this scheme does not create a state liberty interest. Toussaint v.

McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1094-1095 (9th Cir. 1986). Because plaintiff's claims regarding the

loss of his housekeeping assignment and his subsequent reassignment to work group “C” do not

impact on a protected liberty interest, he is not entitled to procedural due process in connection

with those work assignments. In addition, because prisoners do not have a constitutional right to

be incarcerated at a particular correctional facility (see Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25

(1976)), plaintiff also has no constitutionally protected right to remain in a particular housing

Case 2:05-cv-02127-RRB-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 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

group. Therefore, plaintiff cannot state a claim based on any alleged due process violation in

connection with changes in his job assignments and housing. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S.

78, 88 n.9 (1976); Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 829 (9th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims are also not cognizable. “Not every

governmental action affecting the interests or well-being of a prisoner is subject to Eighth

Amendment scrutiny[.]” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). It is “unnecessary and

wanton infliction of pain” that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth

Amendment. Id.. See also Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 670 (1977); Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976). “It is obduracy and wantonness, not inadvertence or error in good

faith, that characterize the conduct prohibited by the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.”

Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319. There is no legal authority which support plaintiff’s claims that his

assignment to a different work group and his temporary loss of yard privileges constituted cruel

and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. 

Plaintiff’s equal protection claims are likewise not cognizable. To prevail on an

equal protection claim, a prisoner must show that he or she was treated in a disparate manner

without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. San Antonio School Dist. v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 40 (1972). Plaintiff alleges only that his equal protection rights were

violated when he was reassigned to a different work group. However, plaintiff has also alleged

that the reassignment was followed a disciplinary hearing where it was established that plaintiff

was found in possession of contraband. Thus, based upon the allegations of his complaint it is

apparent that there was a rational basis for the adverse action taken against plaintiff by prison

officials.

Lastly, plaintiff claims that his due process rights were violated when his inmate

appeal was rejected as untimely and duplicative. “[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional

entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th

Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Therefore, plaintiff’s

Case 2:05-cv-02127-RRB-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 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

 Of course, if plaintiff wishes to challenge the disciplinary conviction itself he may do so 4

by pursuing habeas corpus relief first in state court.

6

assertion that his inmate grievance was properly filed within the time limit set by the California

Code of Regulations and his argument that his appeal should be construed as a re-submission of

his original appeal and not a duplicative appeal, fail to state a cognizable federal claim.4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $17.53. All fees shall be collected and paid in

accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s January 26, 2006 request for consolidation of filing fees is denied.

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with

prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

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

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 5, 2006.

DAD:4

short2127.56

Case 2:05-cv-02127-RRB-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 Page 6 of 6