Michael Alan Dean Hill v. El Dorado County, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California screened Michael Alan Dean Hill’s first amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court found cognizable First and Fourteenth Amendment access-to-courts claims against Dennis Cemo and a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against C/O Balderas, but found the remaining claims insufficiently pleaded. The court granted in forma pauperis status and gave Hill the option to proceed on the screened claims or file an amended complaint.

Holdings

1. The first amended complaint stated a cognizable First and Fourteenth Amendment denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim against Cemo because Hill alleged that confiscation of legal materials prejudiced his ability to present his own criminal defense.
2. The alleged issuance of false disciplinary charges, standing alone, did not state a Fourteenth Amendment claim where the complaint and attached records showed that Hill received a disciplinary hearing and that a requested witness participated.
3. Hill's conclusory allegation that Eslick and Cemo fabricated disciplinary violations did not plausibly state a deliberate-fabrication claim because he did not identify what was fabricated or facts showing deliberate fabrication and resulting deprivation of liberty.
4. The first amended complaint stated a minimally cognizable Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against Balderas because Hill alleged that he requested witnesses at a separate disciplinary hearing and the record did not show that Balderas interviewed them.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the first amended complaint plausibly alleged a First and Fourteenth Amendment denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim based on Cemo's alleged confiscation of legal papers.
2. Whether allegations that Eslick and Cemo issued false disciplinary reports stated a Fourteenth Amendment due process or deliberate-fabrication claim.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that Tinker and Balderas denied Hill procedural due process by refusing to interview or permit witnesses at disciplinary hearings.
4. Whether Hill should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis and amend claims that failed screening.

Disposition

other