Opinion
No. CIV S-06-1721-LKK-CMK-P.
September 14, 2007
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.
On August 20, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 20 days. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.
In their objections, defendants challenge the magistrate judge's recommendation that their motion to dismiss be denied. Defendants argue that the magistrate judge erred in finding that plaintiff has a liberty interest in the procedures used in a prison disciplinary hearing even though there is no allegation of loss of good-time credits. Defendants conclude that, given this error, the magistrate judge was also incorrect in finding that plaintiff's due process challenge to the procedures used in his prison disciplinary hearing was cognizable in this § 1983 action. Specifically, defendants contend:
. . . Because August did not allege that the claim against him resulted in a loss of credits or an atypical hardship, no liberty interest is implicated. Because he was not deprived of any liberty interest no process was due him.
The Magistrate Judge is correct in setting forth the due-process requirements for a prison disciplinary hearing. (Findings Recommendations 2:18-3:10). But a condition precedent to these requirements is that a liberty interest be at stake. Thus, the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that August stated a due-process claim based on his allegations that due-process requirements were not satisfied begs the question whether August was entitled to any due process. . . .
First, the court had already concluded that plaintiff stated a cognizable due process claim before defendants filed their motion to dismiss. In the court's January 8, 2007, order, the undersigned referred this matter to the magistrate judge for issuance of orders for service of process of the complaint with respect to the remaining claim — the due process claim outlined in October 3, 2006, findings and recommendations. The October 3, 2006, findings and recommendations in turn outlined plaintiff's claim that defendants violated his due process rights with respect to procedures at a prison disciplinary hearing.
Second, the undersigned concludes (again) that the magistrate judge did not err in finding that plaintiff states a due process claim cognizable under § 1983. Prisoners in California have a liberty interest in the procedures used in prison disciplinary hearings where a successful claim would not necessarily shorten the prisoner's sentence. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that a due process challenge to a prison disciplinary hearing which did not result in the loss of good-time credits was cognizable under § 1983); see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005) (concluding that due process claims which did not seek earlier or immediate release from prison were cognizable under § 1983). The lack of any allegations in the instant complaint concerning loss of good-time credits is irrelevant. The question is whether the claim, if successful, would result in immediate or earlier release from prison. Plaintiff's claim in this case would not yield such a result if successful.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed August 8, 2007, are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied; and
3. Defendants shall file an answer to the complaint within 30 days of the date of this order.