Thompson v. Bustamante

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismisses a pro se prisoner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging due process violations during a disciplinary hearing. The court concludes that the allegations against the hearing officer and reviewing supervisors are insufficient, and that any challenge to the denial of parole is barred by Heck v. Humphrey. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, and the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a cognizable procedural due process claim against Bustamante because the allegations that he credited the complaining witness and acknowledged that some due process requirement was unmet were conclusory and did not identify a specific procedural deficiency or supporting facts.
2. Hobbs and Miranda were not liable under § 1983 based solely on reviewing and signing off on Bustamante's disciplinary findings because the complaint did not allege their personal involvement in the hearing or a sufficient causal connection to the alleged denial of procedural protections.
3. Any challenge to the denial of parole was not cognizable under § 1983 because it necessarily implicated the validity of Thompson's continued confinement and had not been preceded by reversal, expungement, invalidation, or habeas relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that Bustamante violated Thompson's procedural due process rights during the prison disciplinary hearing.
2. Whether Hobbs and Miranda could be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for reviewing and signing off on the disciplinary report.
3. Whether Thompson's challenge to the denial of parole was cognizable under § 1983 or barred by Heck v. Humphrey.

Disposition

other