Gutierrez v. Pantoja

Summary

The document contains findings and recommendations in a prisoner civil-rights action concerning alleged denial of due process during a prison disciplinary hearing. The magistrate judge recommends denying the plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery and granting summary judgment for the defendant, concluding that the claim is barred by Heck and Edwards and that the plaintiff received the process required by Wolff v. McDonnell. The recommendations were issued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Holdings

1. The claim was barred because a determination that plaintiff was denied the opportunity to call the accusing officer would necessarily imply the invalidity of the disciplinary proceedings and the resulting forfeiture of good-time credits.
2. Even if the claim were not barred by Heck and Edwards, the undisputed evidence showed that plaintiff received the process required by Wolff and that the disciplinary decision was supported by some evidence.
3. The request to reopen discovery should be denied because plaintiff did not show diligence, good cause, or that further discovery would yield relevant information.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's § 1983 due process claim challenging the procedures used in a prison disciplinary hearing was barred by Heck v. Humphrey and Edwards v. Balisok because success would necessarily imply the invalidity of the disciplinary conviction and loss of good-time credits.
2. Whether the undisputed evidence established that plaintiff received the procedural protections required by Wolff v. McDonnell and that the disciplinary decision was supported by some evidence under Superintendent v. Hill.
3. Whether plaintiff demonstrated good cause and diligence sufficient to justify reopening discovery after the discovery deadline.
4. Whether plaintiff's opposition and request for additional discovery created a genuine dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment.

Disposition

other