King v. Tellez

Background

Anthony M. King, an inmate housed at Correctional Training Facility, filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a way to sue a person acting under state law for violating federal rights. The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a required preliminary review of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or officers. King had separately been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The complaint named Correctional Training Facility correctional officer Alejandro Tellez and correctional lieutenant S. Moore as defendants.

Claims the Court Found Cognizable

The court held that the allegations against Tellez stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim. King alleged that Tellez wrote two false rules-violation reports—RVR Nos. 7254672 and 727246—in retaliation for King’s filing of grievances and a lawsuit.

The court also held that the allegation against Moore stated a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim. King alleged that Moore denied him witnesses at the hearing for RVR No. 727246. The court explained that prison disciplinary proceedings require certain procedural protections, including allowing witnesses and documentary evidence when doing so is not unduly hazardous.

Dismissed Claim

The court dismissed with prejudice the claim that Moore violated the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to serve as an impartial arbitrator during the hearing for RVR No. 727246. The court held that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to an impartial arbitrator in a prison disciplinary hearing. It explained that the Constitution requires the procedures established by the Supreme Court’s prison-disciplinary cases, not every additional procedure a prison may provide under its own rules.

Orders Regarding Further Proceedings

The court ordered that Tellez and Moore be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. If either defendant does not waive service, the Clerk must provide the United States Marshals Service with the documents needed for service.

The defendants must file and serve a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed, unless they inform the court that summary judgment cannot resolve the case. King’s opposition will be due 28 days after the motion is filed, and any reply will be due 14 days after the opposition. The court also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Disposition

The complaint states a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Tellez and a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim against Moore. The claim concerning Moore’s alleged failure to act as an impartial arbitrator is dismissed with prejudice, and service is ordered on the two defendants for the claims that remain.