Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00435/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00435-14/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 A. HUNT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0435 LKK JFM P

vs.

COREY MCKAY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. One claim remained in this action: 

whether plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated when defendant

Vance improperly placed plaintiff’s name on a list of suspected or known Blood gang members,

associates or sympathizers, causing plaintiff to be locked down for a period of twelve days.

As noted in the March 2, 2007 findings and recommendations, even assuming,

arguendo, that plaintiff had a liberty interest in being free of confinement to his cell, plaintiff

received the process he was due. (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff was confined to his cell for administrative

purposes. (Id. at 11-12.) The February 4, 2002 memo served as notice. (Id. at 12.) When an

inmate is segregated for administrative rather than disciplinary reasons, the notice given may be

much less specific, indeed may consist only of the “reasons for considering segregation.” 

Case 2:04-cv-00435-LKK -JFM Document 99 Filed 10/29/07 Page 1 of 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

1

 Neither party has provided evidence specifically describing these gang lists or picture

boards from which plaintiff’s name was removed. Neither party has identified where these lists

or pictures were posted or how they were used by prison officials. However, Lt. Reed stated that

the list contained in the February 4, 2002 memo was “provided staff on all shifts (day, swing and

graveyard) to know which cells to open and permit the occupant to leave. (Reed Decl., filed

June 15, 2005, at 5.) Plaintiff has not provided any lists other than the list included in the

February 4, 2002 memo. 

2

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d at 1100-01. Plaintiff was then able to file a grievance,

protesting his lack of ties to the Blood gang. (March 2, 2007 Findings and Recommendations at

12.) Eight days after plaintiff was confined to his cell, his administrative grievance was partially

granted and he was removed from the gang lists and picture board.1 (Id.) Prison officials

confirmed that his central file reflected he was nonaffiliated and there was no mention that he

had been validated as a gang member. (Id.) Finally, prison officials’ decision to confine

plaintiff to his cell was supported by the exigencies of the September 5, 2002 stabbing incident. 

(March 2, 2007 Findings and Recommendations at 15.) 

Accordingly, this court finds that the appeal has not been taken in good faith. The

Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED: October 26, 2007.

 

Case 2:04-cv-00435-LKK -JFM Document 99 Filed 10/29/07 Page 2 of 2