Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20111115_0015854.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-09-19 15:41:34
Document Index: 722350211

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

R. J. BALLASH,
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
The events at issue in this action occurred at the U.S. Penitentiary at Atwater, where Plaintiff was housed at the time.*fn1 Plaintiff names as the defendant in this action R.J. Ballash, an employee of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons at Atwater. Defendant Ballash is the Disciplinary Hearing Officer at USP Atwater. Plaintiff's claim stems from a disciplinary conviction he suffered at Atwater.
Plaintiff alleges that he received a "misconduct report" for fighting. At his disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff indicated that he acted in self-defense. Specifically, Plaintiff was attacked by other inmates. Plaintiff alleges that a staff member "had already written a statement that I acted in self-defense." Plaintiff asked the hearing officer to review the video of the event, as it had taken place in view of a camera. Plaintiff's request was denied. Plaintiff was found guilty, and sentenced to 180 days loss of commissary and transfer to another correctional institution. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant deliberately ignored evidence that clearly indicated that Plaintiff acted in self defense.
A. State Actor
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). "A person deprives another of a constitutional right, where that person 'does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made." Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 9th Cir. 1978)). "[T]he 'requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actors knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.'" Id. (quoting Johnson at 743.44).
The sole defendant in this action is an official employed by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, and the event at issue occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated in a BOP facility. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that Defendant acted under color of state law. Any claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should therefore be dismissed.
Plaintiff may, however, proceed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). A Bivens cause of action is a judicially created counterpart to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for claims against federal officers. Since federal officials do not ordinarily act under color of state law, constitutional violations by federal officials are generally beyond the reach of § 1983. Bivens established that "victims of a constitutional violation by a federal agent have a right to ...