Mackey v. Bloomfield

Background

Vincent Robert Mackey brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at San Quentin State Prison. After earlier screening and rulings on motions to dismiss, one claim remained: Mackey’s claim that Correctional Counselor Della Baker violated his right to due process.

Mackey alleged that Baker placed, and failed to remove, false information in his central prison file indicating that he had prior convictions for first-degree robbery and kidnapping for ransom. He also alleged that the information contributed to the denial of parole.

The parties agreed that Baker made errors on a 2015 Mentally Disordered Offender, or MDO, form. The form incorrectly stated that Mackey had been convicted of attempted kidnapping for ransom and first-degree robbery in 1984. The record showed that Mackey had been charged with kidnapping but was not convicted of it, and that his first-degree robbery conviction was from 1990. The parties also agreed that Baker should not have completed the MDO form because Mackey was serving a life sentence and had no release date.

The opinion states that Mackey’s criminal-history records in his central file accurately identified his 1990 robbery conviction and did not include a kidnapping conviction. Baker submitted evidence that, as a correctional counselor, she lacked authority to enter or change convictions in those criminal-history records. The opinion identifies the MDO form as the only document in Mackey’s files containing the inaccurate kidnapping conviction and the incorrect robbery-conviction date.

Mackey was denied parole at his first parole hearing in 2021. The forensic risk assessment and parole hearing discussed his criminal history and conduct, but neither referred to the MDO form, a kidnapping conviction, or a 1984 robbery conviction. The parole board cited other reasons for denying parole, including Mackey’s parole history, prior violent crimes, lack of insight into his criminal thinking and drug addiction, and the risk of renewed drug use and criminal behavior.

Legal Standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.

Due-Process Analysis

The court explained that due process protects a person from deprivation of life, liberty, or property. In the prison context, a claimed condition generally must impose an unusual and significant hardship, or otherwise affect the length of the prisoner’s sentence, to support a due-process claim.

The court had previously allowed Mackey’s claim to proceed because, at the earlier pleading stage, his allegations could be understood to claim that Baker placed nonexistent convictions in his file and thereby caused an actual parole denial. At summary judgment, however, the court considered the evidentiary record rather than the allegations alone.

The court held that no reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the errors on the MDO form violated Mackey’s due-process rights. The court distinguished the situation from a prior case involving an unsupported prison disciplinary conviction because the inaccurate MDO information was not part of Mackey’s criminal-history records, was not used in the parole decision or risk assessment, and did not create a realistic risk that Mackey would have to explain the inaccurate convictions at a parole hearing or another proceeding.

The court also found no evidence that the MDO form caused any other adverse consequence. There was no evidence that prison officials relied on it to segregate Mackey, reclassify him, or deprive him of rights or privileges. The court therefore concluded that Baker was entitled to summary judgment on the due-process claim arising from the inaccurate MDO form.

Gang-Label Allegation

Mackey’s amended complaint also referred to being labeled a Blood gang member. The court had not identified that allegation as a cognizable claim against Baker because Mackey did not allege that Baker played a role in the labeling. Baker presented evidence that she did not prepare the relevant records and lacked authority to validate an inmate as a gang member. Mackey presented no evidence that Baker was involved. The court concluded there was no triable issue on that allegation.

Administrative Grievance and Disposition

The court noted that Baker had invited Mackey to seek correction of the inaccurate MDO form through a new administrative grievance specifically requesting that the form be corrected or expunged. The court did not order that relief.

The court granted Della Baker’s motion for summary judgment and denied her motion to strike Mackey’s sur-reply as unnecessary. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file. The opinion does not state that either ruling was with or without prejudice.