Mackey v. Bloomfield

Background

Vincent Robert Mackey, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at San Quentin State Prison. After screening the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, three claims were dismissed and two remained: one against Correctional Counselor Della Baker and one against Lieutenant Teixeira.

Mackey alleged that Baker placed a document in his central prison file in 2015 falsely stating that he had committed first-degree robbery and kidnapping for ransom in 1985. He alleged that Baker did not remove the document and that false information in his file harmed his chance of obtaining parole.

Mackey also alleged that Teixeira presided over a September 29, 2022 disciplinary hearing involving two prison rules-violation reports. Mackey claimed that Teixeira acted unfairly, accused him of manipulating an officer, denied him witnesses, and wrongly found him guilty of violating prison rules.

Rulings on the Motions to Dismiss

The court applied Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Because Mackey represented himself, the court read his allegations liberally, while still requiring facts supporting the claimed violation.

The court granted Teixeira’s motion to dismiss. It concluded that Mackey had not plausibly alleged a protected liberty interest based on Teixeira’s disciplinary findings. The court explained that the possibility of a future parole denial generally does not itself create a protected liberty interest. Mackey’s 2021 parole denial occurred before Teixeira’s September 2022 disciplinary hearing, and the complaint was signed only about two weeks after that hearing. The court therefore found it implausible that Teixeira’s findings caused the earlier parole denial.

The court also stated that, even if a protected liberty interest existed, Mackey had not alleged enough facts to show that denying witnesses violated due process. He did not identify the witnesses or explain what relevant testimony they would have provided. The court dismissed the claim against Teixeira without leave to amend because it found that amendment would be futile.

The court denied Baker’s motion to dismiss. Accepting Mackey’s allegations for purposes of the motion, the court concluded that Baker allegedly entered nonexistent criminal convictions into his prison file and that those entries may have contributed to an actual parole denial. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent concerning unsupported prison convictions, the court held that Mackey’s allegations were sufficient at this stage to state a claim for denial of procedural due process. The court emphasized that this ruling concerned whether the claim could proceed, not whether Mackey would ultimately prove it.

Other Motions and Case Schedule

The court denied the defendants’ motion to sever as moot because the claim against Teixeira was dismissed. It denied Mackey’s motion for default judgment because Baker and Teixeira had defended against the claims and had not failed to plead or otherwise defend. The dismissal of Mackey’s other claims and his allegations concerning another defendant also did not support default judgment.

The court ordered Baker to file a motion for summary judgment no later than 91 days after the order was issued, supported by factual documentation, records, and incident reports concerning the events at issue. It set deadlines for Mackey’s opposition and Baker’s reply and stated that no hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley signed the order.