United States District Court, D. Oregon, Pendleton Division
OPINION AND ORDER
Yim You United States Magistrate Judge
an inmate at the Two Rivers Correctional Institution
(“TRCI”), brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pro
se. Currently before the court are defendants'
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF # 28) and
plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
(ECF #45). For the reasons that follow, the court GRANTS
defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and
DENIES plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
claims stem from a physical altercation with a fellow inmate,
Ray Thompson, on September 13, 2017. Following a disciplinary
hearing, plaintiff was found guilty of Inmate Assault I and
Disrespect I, and sanctioned to 90 days in disciplinary
segregation. ECF #14, at 17. Plaintiff alleges that he was
improperly found guilty of Inmate Assault I (ECF #14, at 12)
and the disciplinary proceeding failed to comport with due
process requirements (ECF #11, at 6; ECF #14, at 3). He also
contends that the hearings officer, defendant James Deacon
(“Deacon”), impermissibly found he had engaged in
a “mutual altercation, ” although the officer who
responded to the scene, Officer McConkey, never made such a
statement in his report. ECF #11, at 2. Plaintiff further
contends that Deacon attempted to “cover his foul
ups” by supplementing his order with an additional
paragraph, after plaintiff had already been found guilty and
had been served with a copy of the order. ECF #11, at 2; ECF
#14, at 14-15. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Deacon,
and defendant Captain R.A. Young for “their part”
in finding him guilty of Assault 1. ECF #14, at 5.
move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(c) on two grounds: (1) plaintiff has no protected liberty
interest in remaining free from placement in disciplinary
segregation; and (2) nevertheless, attachments to
plaintiff's Amended Complaint demonstrate that the
disciplinary proceedings against plaintiff afforded him all
of the process due under the Fourteenth Amendment.
may move for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings
are closed but early enough not to delay trial. Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(c). “Analysis under Rule 12(c) is substantially
identical to analysis under Rule 12(b)(6) because, under both
rules, a court must determine whether the facts alleged in
the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a
legal remedy.” Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land
Mgmt, 793 F.3d 1147, 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and
quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, “[a] judgment on
the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all
allegations in the pleadings as true, the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Owens v.
Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th
Cir. 2001) (quotation marks omitted).
survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “the
non-conclusory ‘factual content' [of the
complaint], ” and reasonable inferences from that
content, “must be plausibly suggestive of a claim
entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S.
Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
“[O]nce a claim has been stated adequately, it may be
supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the
allegations in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563 (2007).
to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider a document
on a motion for judgment on the pleadings if the plaintiff
refers extensively to the document or the document is
integral to plaintiffs claim. U.S. v. Ritchie, 342
F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Coto
Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir.
2010) (on a motion to dismiss, the court may consider
materials incorporated into the complaint or matters of
public record without converting the motion into a motion for
summary judgment). Moreover, agency orders are documents of
which this court may take judicial notice under Fed.R.Evid.
201. See Read v. Haley, Case No.
3:12-cv-02021-MO, 2013 WL 1562938, at *1 n.3 (D. Or. April
10, 2013) (holding that “[o]n a motion to dismiss, a
court may take judicial notice of facts outside of the
pleadings that are matters of public record, such as records
or reports from courts or administrative bodies”)
(internal citations omitted). While a court may take judicial
notice of “matters of public record” without
converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary
judgment, a court may not take judicial notice of a fact that
is “subject to reasonable dispute.” Lee v.
City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir. 2001)
(quoting Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)).
Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall
“deprive any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law.” U.S. CONST. amend
XIV,' 1. “Due process ‘is a flexible concept
that varies with the particular situation.'”
Shinault v. Hawks, 782 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir.
2015)(quoting Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127
the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, a prisoner
is entitled to certain due process protections when he is
charged with a disciplinary violation.” Serrano v.
Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-71 (1974)).
But “[l]awful imprisonment necessarily makes
unavailable many rights and privileges of the ordinary
citizen, ” and though prisoners retain constitutional
protections of religious freedom, access to the court, equal
protection, and substantive due process, “[p]rison
disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal
prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant
in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff,
418 U.S. at 555-56.
Wolff, the Supreme Court discussed the due process
requirements of a prison disciplinary hearing. First, prison
officials must provide the prisoner with written notice at
least twenty-four hours before the hearing. Id. at
564. This notice must include the charges against the inmate,
a written description of the evidence on which the fact
finder relies, and the reason for taking disciplinary action.
Id.Second, prison officials should allow the
prisoner “to call witnesses and present documentary
evidence in his defense when permitting him to do so will not
be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional
goals.” Id. at 566. Third, if the prisoner is
illiterate, or if the complexity of the case makes
comprehension unlikely, prison officials should allow the
prisoner to “seek the aid of a fellow inmate, or if
that is forbidden, to have adequate substitute aid in the
form of help from the staff or from a sufficiently ...