Facts

Plaintiff Tristin D. King, an incarcerated inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, against Defendant I. Jauregui, a correctional officer, over the issuance of a Rule Violation Report by Defendant.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended Jauregui violated equal protection and due process rights when he falsified a disciplinary rules violation report against Plaintiff and claimed that Plaintiff had failed to provide a urine sample for purposes of testing. Plaintiff contended he was directed to take the urine sample but Defendant failed to afford Plaintiff the full three hours required, in which to provide one. Plaintiff contended despite various efforts, Plaintiff was unable to provide a urine sample within the time he was given, that he advised Jauregui that his medication was impeding the process, and that he asked for more time, but Jauregui refused. Plaintiff told Jauregui that he would be submitting an inmate grievance against fir failing to afford Plaintiff the full three hours required, while Jauregui said he would indicate on the RVR that Plaintiff had tried, but was unable, to provide a urine sample. However, Plaintiff contended, Jauregui instead issued a "115," also known as a Rules Violation Report and Plaintiff was thereafter found guilty during the RVR hearing and assessed certain penalties.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied the contentions and contended Plaintiff failed to state a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 because the court had previously determined that Plaintiff did not suffer a due process violation. Thus Defendant contended Plaintiff was barred from asserting a similar claim for violation of his due process rights.

Result

The court dismissed King's due process claim with prejudice, because it was based on a loss of good time credits that had been restored, prior to King bringing the case, through his administrative appeal of the Rules Violation Report. The court also held that, if it were to reach the question of issue preclusion based on the prior federal action King brought against the Rules Violation Report hearing officer, then the court would have probably ruled similarly because that case determined that King's due process rights had not been violated.