Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01721/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01721-10/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

MICHAEL W. AUGUST, No. CIV S-06-1721-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

JOHN DOVEY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Eastern District of California local rules.

On August 20, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within 20 days. Timely objections to the

findings and recommendations have been filed.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01721-LKK -CMK Document 33 Filed 09/14/07 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

In their objections, defendants challenge the magistrate judge’s recommendation

that their motion to dismiss be denied. Defendants argue that the magistrate judge erred in

finding that plaintiff has a liberty interest in the procedures used in a prison disciplinary hearing

even though there is no allegation of loss of good-time credits. Defendants conclude that, given

this error, the magistrate judge was also incorrect in finding that plaintiff’s due process challenge

to the procedures used in his prison disciplinary hearing was cognizable in this § 1983 action. 

Specifically, defendants contend: 

. . . Because August did not allege that the claim against him

resulted in a loss of credits or an atypical hardship, no liberty interest is

implicated. Because he was not deprived of any liberty interest no process

was due him.

The Magistrate Judge is correct in setting forth the due-process

requirements for a prison disciplinary hearing. (Findings &

Recommendations 2:18-3:10). But a condition precedent to these

requirements is that a liberty interest be at stake. Thus, the Magistrate

Judge’s conclusion that August stated a due-process claim based on his

allegations that due-process requirements were not satisfied begs the

question whether August was entitled to any due process. . . .

First, the court had already concluded that plaintiff stated a cognizable due

process claim before defendants filed their motion to dismiss. In the court’s January 8, 2007,

order, the undersigned referred this matter to the magistrate judge for issuance of orders for

service of process of the complaint with respect to the remaining claim – the due process claim

outlined in October 3, 2006, findings and recommendations. The October 3, 2006, findings and

recommendations in turn outlined plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated his due process rights

with respect to procedures at a prison disciplinary hearing.

Second, the undersigned concludes (again) that the magistrate judge did not err in

finding that plaintiff states a due process claim cognizable under § 1983. Prisoners in California

have a liberty interest in the procedures used in prison disciplinary hearings where a successful

claim would not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d

850, 853, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that a due process challenge to a prison disciplinary

hearing which did not result in the loss of good-time credits was cognizable under § 1983); see

Case 2:06-cv-01721-LKK -CMK Document 33 Filed 09/14/07 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

also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005) (concluding that due process claims which did

not seek earlier or immediate release from prison were cognizable under § 1983). The lack of

any allegations in the instant complaint concerning loss of good-time credits is irrelevant. The

question is whether the claim, if successful, would result in immediate or earlier release from

prison. Plaintiff’s claim in this case would not yield such a result if successful. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 8, 2007, are adopted in

full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied; and

3. Defendants shall file an answer to the complaint within 30 days of the date

of this order.

DATED: September 14, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01721-LKK -CMK Document 33 Filed 09/14/07 Page 3 of 3