Raridon v. Fackrell, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a state prisoner’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim arising from a prison disciplinary hearing. The court held that, because the plaintiff was serving an indeterminate sentence, the loss of 200 days of credits did not implicate a protected liberty interest. The action was dismissed without leave to amend, judgment was entered for the defendant, and the case was closed.

Holdings

1. The court may judicially notice plaintiff's abstract of judgment because it was subject to accurate and ready determination from a source whose accuracy could not reasonably be questioned.
2. Because plaintiff was serving an indeterminate sentence, the loss of 200 days of credits did not alter the length of his incarceration and therefore did not implicate a protected liberty interest requiring procedural due process protections.
3. Dismissal was warranted because the complaint failed to state a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, and the action was dismissed without leave to amend.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim based on the loss of 200 days of prison credits imposed at a disciplinary hearing.
2. Whether the court could consider plaintiff's abstract of judgment through judicial notice.
3. Whether the complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) without leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed