Opinion ID: 692895
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wood's Disciplinary Hearing

Text: 11 In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570 (1970), the Supreme Court outlined the due process protections that States must provide prisoners in disciplinary proceedings. States must furnish, inter alia, legal assistance where an illiterate inmate is involved ... or where the complexity of the issue makes it unlikely that the inmate will be able to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate comprehension of the case. Id. 12 The district court concluded that because Wood failed to allege either illiteracy or sufficient complexity of his case, prison officials had no duty to provide him with either legal assistance or access to a law library. However, this deficiency does not justify the district court's dismissal of Wood's complaint. 13 We have held that for pro se litigants, leave to amend a complaint should be granted freely. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1988) ([W]hen a court dismisses a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim, the court should draft a few sentences explaining to the plaintiff the deficiencies and allow the plaintiff to amend.). That Wood failed to allege sufficient complexity of his case should not preclude him from making that assertion on remand. 14 Wood was detained in the lockdown unit when he needed to prepare for his disciplinary proceeding. The severe restrictions on his liberty likely made it difficult for him to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate comprehension of [his] case. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 570. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and remand to the district court to grant Wood leave to amend his complaint.