Edwards v. Saucedo

Full title: LARRY D. EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. E.A. SAUCEDO, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Mar 6, 2008

No. CIV S-06-2081 GEB DAD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-2081 GEB DAD P.

March 6, 2008

ORDER

DALE DROZD, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an in forma pauperis application that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is currently without funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust account. These payments will be collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "requires only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;" it must contain factual allegations sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic, 127 S. Ct. at 1965. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). "A person 'subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made." Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory ofrespondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged.See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In the present case, plaintiff has identified as defendants R. Blackwell, R. Long, E.A. Saucedo, and Warden D.K. Sisto. All defendants are employed at CSP-Solano.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Blackwell, Long, and Saucedo recommended that he be categorized as an administrative determinant pursuant to 15 Cal. Admin. Code 4 § 3375.2(b)(25).¹ Plaintiff alleges that the defendants made that recommendation in retaliation for his filing of administrative grievances and civil rights actions against them. Plaintiff also alleges that the defendants' recommendation does not advance any legitimate penological interests. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Sisto, as Chief Executive Officer, has allowed this treatment of prisoners and is legally responsible for it. Finally, plaintiff requests a court order requiring that he be placed in minimum security institution.

1 Under that regulation, prisoners found to be administrative determinants may have administrative or irregular placement conditions imposed upon them, overriding their placement at the type of facility called for by their placement score. In plaintiff's case that status was based upon a current or prior conviction for a violent felony, or a sustained juvenile adjudication requiring placement in a facility with a higher security level than that indicated by his placement score. See 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3375.2(b)(25).

The court finds that plaintiff's complaint states cognizable claims for relief against defendants Blackwell, Long, and Saucedo. If the allegations of the complaint are proven against the defendants, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. The court finds that plaintiff's complaint does not state a cognizable claim against defendant Sisto. Plaintiff has failed to allege any specific causal link between the actions of defendant Sisto and the claimed constitutional violations.²

2 However, apart from plaintiff's retaliation claim, the court notes that it is well-established that inmates do not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated at a particular correctional facility or in a particular cell or unit within a facility. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985) ("An inmate's liberty interests are sufficiently extinguished by his conviction so that the state may change his place of confinement even though the degree of confinement may be different and prison life may be more disagreeable in one institution than in another.") Thus, allegations of a deprivation of rights caused by prison officials' decisions regarding a prisoner's place of confinement or housing assignments do not give rise to a federal constitutional claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's September 19, 2006 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. The fee shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Service of the complaint is appropriate for the following defendants: Blackwell, Long, and Saucedo.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed September 19, 2006.

5. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit all of the following documents to the court at the same time:

a. The completed, signed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3 above; and

d. Four copies of the endorsed complaint filed September 19, 2006.

6. Plaintiff shall not attempt to effect service of the complaint on defendants or request a waiver of service of summons from any defendant. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed _________________________:one three four

_____ completed summons form; _____ completed USM-285 forms; and _____ true and exact copies of the complaint filed September 19, 2006. DATED: _________________________. ___________________________________ Plaintiff LARRY EDWARDS E.A. SAUCEDO, ET AL 42 U.S.C. § 1983R. BLACKWELL, R. LONG D.K. SISTO, WARDEN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Name of Plaintiff) (Case Number) vs. COMPLAINT Civil Rights Act, _____________________________ (Names of all Defendants)

I. Previous Lawsuits (list all other previous or pending lawsuits on back of this form):

X 2 MEDICAL INDIFFERENCE, FAMILY VISITATION, RETALIATION DR. JASON A. ROHRER, R. LONG, R. BLACKWELL, N. FRY, EASTERN DISTRICT A. Have you brought any other lawsuits while a prisoner? Yes No __ B. If your answer to A is yes, how many? Describe previous or pending lawsuits in the space below. (If more than one, use back of paper to continue outlining all lawsuits.) 1. Parties to this previous lawsuit: Plaintiff Defendants _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 2. Court (if Federal Court give name of District: if State Court, give name of County) _____________________________________________________________________ 3. Docket Number ____________ 4. Assigned Judge __________________ 5. Disposition (For example: Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?) PENDING _____________________________________________________________________ 6. Filing date (approx.) ____ 7. Disposition date (approx.) ______

II. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

X ALL X X 42 U.S.C. § 1983 42 U.S.C. § 1997ebefore Booth v. Churner 532 U.S. 731 741 McKinney v. Carey 311 F.3d 1198 1999 Even if you are seeking only money damages and the inmate appeal or administrative remedy process does not provide money, you must exhaust the process before filing suit. Booth 532 U.S. at 734 A. Is there an inmate appeal or administrative remedy process available at your institution? Yes No __ B. Have you filed an appeal or grievance concerning of the facts contained in this complaint? Yex No __ If your answer is no, explain why not _______________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ C. Is the process completed? Yes If your answer is yes, briefly explain what happened at each level. DENIED _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ No __ If your answer is no, explain why not. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ NOTICE: Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." (a). If there is an inmate appeal or administrative remedy process available at your institution, you may not file an action under Section 1983, or any other federal law, until you have first completed (exhausted) the process available at your institution. You are required to complete (exhaust) the inmate appeal or administrative remedy process filing suit, regardless of the relief offered by the process. , , (2001); , , (9th Cir. 2002). , .

III. Defendants

(In Item A below, place the full name of the defendant in the first blank, his/her official position in the second blank, and his/her place of employment in the third blank. Use item B for the names, positions and places of employment of any additional defendants.)

E.A. SAUCEDO CORRECTIONAL GUARD/ COUNSELOR C.S.P. SOLANO, IN VACAVILLE, CALIFORNIA CCI R. BLACKWELL, CCII R. LONG AND WARDEN D.K. A. Defendant is employed as at B. Additional defendants SISTO _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

IV. Statement of Claim

(State here as briefly as possible the facts of your case. Describe how each defendant is involved, including dates and places. Do not give any legal arguments or cite any cases or statutes. Attach extra sbeets if necessary.)

On Feburary 23, 2006, I was placed under the administrative determinant Per CCR Section 3375.2(b)25. This was the reeommendation of CCI Saucedo CCI R. Blackwell and CCII R. Long, all of whom should have never been a part of any committee making decision regarding me. I have unresolved civil and administrative issues pending against them, and because of the fact that I exercised my right to file grievances against these Guards/ counselors, they all told me that Ihad nothing coming, even when i asked to assigned to another counselor. CCI Saucedo, after receiving the complaint that I had filed against her, she was so furioue that she called out my name stating, "Mr. Edwards, you want to play that game, two people can play that game. I was brought before a committe headed by CCI R. Blackwe

V. Relief.

(State briefly exactly what you want the court to do for you. Make no legal arguments. Cite no cases or statutes.)

Plaintiff ask this court to oreder the CDCR, specially C.S.P. Solano to comply with its regulation and send plaintiff to minimum custody as he should have been. That the court places a Federal Receiver over this department of CDCR, in order for the prisoner to get the help in which he needs to help in his rehabilitation. That the status of Correctional Guard/ Counselor is impeding on the prisoners ability to reform because the Correctional Guard/Counsel or loyalty is with the department and not to help the prisoner at all, please investigate this department.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.9-15-16

Date Signature of Plaintiff _______________________ and CCII R. Long, with CCI E.A. Saucedo my then counselor. Each of theme knew that the rules and regulation that were to be applied to this matter according to this section of the CCR, requires that the Inmate has a current or prior coviction for a violent felony, Per CCR Section 3375.2, (b)25. That after preparing my file for any committe in this regard and review by the committee's heads, they all knew that the offenses that they based their recommendation, were in fact misdemeanors and did not quality for this section, and that I was in fact eligible for minimum custody, (see exhibits (a) and (b). Each of these indivdiduals harbored resentment towards me based on the fact that of my prolific use of the prison grievance system. That CCI E.A. Saucedo, CCI R. Blackwell, and CCII R. Long made and filed this recommendation to the CSR Board, against this plaintiff in retaliation for plaintiff exercising his constitutional rights and the retalitory action against the plaintiff advance no legitimate penological interest. It has been well settled that an administrative regulation has the force of law, and is binding on the issuing agency.

CCI E.A. Saucedo, CCI R. Blackwell and CCIIR. Long breached their fiduciary duties when they knowingly and intentionally prepared, filed and recommended that I be placed under the administrative determinant Per CCR Section 3375.2, (b)25, knowing that the information that was used did not qualify me to be placed under this section of the CCR. Knowing that I would equally disadvantage by the CSR Board because there was no way that I could defend myself and make my case with them, and that the CSR Board has only the prepared file before them and the recommendation. These three individuals has a history of retaliation and abusing the authority that has been given to them.

I have a constitutional right to equal protection, and protection from retalitory action such has this. Warden D.K. Sisto, is the Chief Executive Officer, and has continued to allow this treatment of prisoners and is legally responsible, as set forth in Penal Code 2079. DIRECTOR'S LEVEL APPEAL DECISION AUG 14 2006

Date: In re: Edwards, K-88642 California State Prison, Solano P.O. Box 4000 Vacaville, CA 95696-4000 IAB Case No.: 0513968 Local Log No.: SOL 06-00252 This matter was reviewed on behalf of the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) by Appeals Examiner J. Pearson, Facility Captain. All submitted documentation and supporting arguments of the parties have been considered.

I APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT: It is the appellant's position that he disagrees with the actions taken by the Unit Classification Committee (UCC). The appellant states that Correctional Counselor II Long has an unresolved civil action pending and the action of UCC to deny him Minimum "B" custody is retaliatory for the filing of that action. The appellant is requesting to have his appeal processed as an emergency appeal and to have a committee be convened to again evaluate the appellant's suitability for minimum custody. The appellant is requesting to be granted lcave to pursue any course of action under civil proceedings.

II SECOND LEVEL'S DECISION: The reviewer found that appellant's allegations have been thoroughly reviewed. The scope of the appeal will address the appellant's allegations of staff misconduct. An inquiry into the appellant's allegations was made as specifically delineated in the First Level of Review and Second Level of Review and the appellant was notified of the completion of the review of the matter.

III DIRECTOR'S LEVEL DECISION: Appeal is denied.

A. FINDINGS: Upon review of the documentation submitted, it is determined that the appellant's allegations have been reviewed and evaluated by administrative staff and an inquiry has been completed. All staff personnel matters are confidential in nature and not privy to the inquiries of other staff, the general public or the inmate population, and would not be released to the appellant. However, upon completion of final review, the appellant is to be notified by the respective investigative body that an inquiry has been completed. In this case, the institution has reported that the review of the matter has been completed.

B. BASIS FOR TITE DECTSION:

California Penal Code Section: 832.7

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section: 3004, 3391

C. ORDER: No changes or modifications are required by the institution.

This decision exhausts the administrative remedy available to the appellant within CDCR.

N. GRANNIS, Chief

Inmate Appeals Branch CSP-S 06-00252

Location: Institution/Perole Region Log No. Caregory INMATE/PAROLEE APPEAL FORM 1. 1. __________ CDC 602 (12/87) 2. __________ 2. __________ You may appeal any policy, action or decision which has a significant adverse affect upon you. With the exception of Serious CDC 115s, classification committee actions. and classification and staff representative decisions, you must first informally seek relief through discussion with the eppropriate staff member, who will sign your form and state what action was taken. If you are not then satisfied, you may send your appeal with all the supporting documents and not more than one additional page of comments to the Appeals Coordinetor within 15 days of the action taken. No reprisals will be taken for using the appeals procedure responsibly. NAME 2 1 NUMBER ASSIGNMENT UNIT/ROOM NUMBER Edwards, Larry K-88642 O.S.R.T. 15-J-1-L A. Describe Problem: On 12-20-05, Appellant was interviewed by the UCC committee. Appellant was told that if he disagrees with the decision he could appeal. Appellant do now appeal, For the following reasons set forth in this appeal, Appellant could have not received any favorable decision. (1). That CCII Long has unresolved issues pending in a civil action against CCII Long by the Appellant, that is based on similar issues of his abuse of authority. (2). Pursuant to Civil Code of Procedure, Rule 201, This action creates a liberty i interest, because the Constitution protects an inmate, prision official may no

If you need more space, attach one additional sheet.

B. Action Requested: Appellant request that according to CCR Ticle 15, sec. 3084.7 that appellant appeal be proceesed as an emergency appeal. That a committee be brought forth to again evaluate the appellant's file. And that appellant be granted leave to pursue any course of action under civil proceedings. Inmate/Parolee Signature: _________________________________ Date Submited: ________________ C. INFORMAL LEVEL (Date Received: ______________)

Staff Response:

_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Staff Signature: _____________________________________ Date Returned to Inmate: __________ D. FORMAL LEVEL

If you are dissatisfied, explain below, attach supporting documents (Completed CDC 115, Investigator's Report, Classification chrono, CDC 128. etc.) and submit to the Institution/Parole Region Appeals Coordinator for processing within 15 days of receipt of response.

_______________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

Signature: _______________________________________________ Date Submitted: ______________ Note: Property/Funds appeals must be accompanied by a completed CDC Appeal Number: Board of Control form BC-1E, Inmate Claim First Level Granted P. Granted Denied Other ______________________ E. REVIEWER'S ACTION (Complete within 15 warking days) Date assigned: 1-23-6 Due Date: 3-8-6

Interviewed by: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

Staff Signature: ___________________ Title: ____________________ Date Completed: _________ Division Head Approved: Returned Signature: _________________________ Title: ____________________ Date to Inmate: _________ F. If dissatisfied. explain reasons for requesting a Second-Level Review, and submit to Institution or Parole Region Appeais Coordinator within 15 days of receipt of response. I am dissatisfied with your response. Your policy as you call it Violate the law. The United States Supreme Court Justices has ruled in Sheperd v. U.S. March 7, 2005, that no police reports, Transcripts or probation reports can no longer be used. You use the law in P.C 667.5, the law supersedes your policy 4-7-6 5-5-6 5, 3 06 MAY 05 2006 Signature: _____________________________________________________ Date Submitted: _________ Second Level Granted P. Granted Denied Other ______________________ G. REVIEWER'S ACTION (Complete within 10 working days): Date assigned: Due Date: See Atteched Letter Signature: _____________________________________________________ Date Completed: Warden/Superintendent Signature: _______________________________ Date Returned to Thmare: H. If dissatisfied, add date or reasons for requesting a Director's Lavel Review, and submit by mail to the third level within 15 days of receipt of response.

_______________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

Signature: _____________________________________________________ Date Submitted: _________ For the Director's Review, submit all documents to: Director of Corrections P.O. Box 942883 Sacramento, CA 94283-0001 Attn: Chief, Inmate Appeals DIBECTOR'S ACTION: Granted P. Granted Denied Other _________________ See Attached Letter Date: ___________________ not retaliate against those who seek the court to obtain relief. Whether the retaliation takes the form of witholding property or privileges don not matter. (see, Williams v. MEESE, 926 F2d 994; Whittington V. Lynaugh, 642 F2d 818; Prate V. Rowland, 769 F. Supp.

Exhibit

the appellant's "Liberty Interest". Appellant was convicted and sentence to a non-violent crime. The prior offenses that this committee has brought to the hearing was never. used as part of the State Prosecutor's or the Court's decision when appellant was sentence. These charges were never a part to any determination of the court, or the Prosecutor's charges for prior offenses. The United States Supreme Court's decision in Shepard V. U.S. 544 U.S. __________ decided March 7, 2005, forbids the use of," Police Reports, Transcripts and other records of prior offenses. This Court ruled that this violated the Constitution of equal protection, and created a Liberty Interest. It is just as equally to noted that CCII R. Long acting as Facility Captain, CCI R. Blackwell, acting as the CCII in this committee on Appellant's hearing, and CCI E.A. Saucedo, who is appellant conselor. All of which appellant has made prior complaints that are still pending in District Court, and in at the Administrative level. It is a fact that the decision reached by this members is one of retaliation against the appellant, and they should have not been a part of any decision making process that involved the appellant. "Retaliation violates the law, and in the appellant's case can be proved by the acts and action used in this matter against the Apellant. Memorandum INMATE APPEAL LOG NUMBER CSP-S-06-00252

Date: March 15, 2006 To: EDWARDS, K-88642 15-J-1L From: California State Prison-Solano, Vacaville 95696-4000 Subject: This is in response to your First Level Appeal, Log #CSP-S-06-00252, dated December 20, 2005, In your appeal, you state that UCC made a decision to change your program that excluded you from being able to get minimum custody, by placing you under the violent exclusion status (VIO). You state the committee is exercising judicial powers and utilizing incidents from prior offenses from police reports to validate their agendas. Furthermore, you state CCII Long has unresolved issues pending against him of a civil action lawsuit by appellant.

You are requesting that a committee evaluate appellant's file and requesting placement as Minimum B custody.

On March 15, 2006, Correctional Sergeant J. Benavidez interviewed you to fully explain your appeal and provide evidence supporting your claim.

On March 15, 2006, a documented fact-finding was also completed in which a decision was rendered. A review of this matter has been conducted, including an interview with you. Correctional Counselor II Long and an examination of policy and procedure that are pertinent to your allegations.

Your claim that CSP-SOL classification staff is retaliating against you for filing a lawsuit by inappropriately denying you Min B custody is unsubstantiated. The results of the review indicated that you were found guilty by Los Angeles County of Penal Code 245(1) PC Assault w/Deadly Weapon. The arrest reports indicates, on March 14, 1996 you were sentenced to serve 180 days in county jail. These cases involved meet the criteria for an Administrative Determinant for Violence. Per CCR Section 3375.2(b)25, Inmate has a current or prior conviction for a violent felony, or sustained juvenile adjudication including, but not limited to, those listed under Penal Code section 667.5(c), which as determined by the Classification Staff Representative (CSR), requires placement in a facility with a higher security level than that indicated by his/her placement score. The committee noted your prior conviction and acted to refer your case to the CSR for consideration of a "VIO" determinant. The CSR reviewed your case factors on February 23, 2006, and acted to impose the "VIO" determinant at that time.

You have failed to provide any evidence to support your allegation that CCII Long acted in retaliating against you by recommending placement of "VIO" status. The primary mission of each institution is the protection of the public by the safe keeping of all inmates committed to the custody of that institution. With this goal in mind, institutional resources and security needs are currently under intense review.

You were unable to present any evidence to support your allegation that CSP-Solano unfairly placed you on "VIO" status. Each case requires independent review to ensure correct placement each inmate is assigned to a facility with a security level.

Based on the foregoing, your appeal is DENIED. Administrative staff will continue to adhere to policy and procedure for inmate placement in accordance to these rules.

D.R. JOHNS

Associate Warden

Level II Operations Memorandum

Date: May 3, 2006 To: Edwards, L., K-88642 15-J-1L California State Prison-Solano Subject: SECOND LEVEL APPEAL RESPONSE LOG NO.: SOL 06-00252 ISSUE:

It is your position that on December 20, 2005, during Unit Classification Committee (UCC) you were advised you could appeal the actions of Correctional Counselor-II (Supervisor) R. Long. You contend that Mr. Long has unresolved similar issues pending in a civil judicial matter based on abuse of authority. You contend that the Constitution protects and inmate who has a liberty interest at stake when staff retaliate against an inmates who seeks relief from the court.

You request that this appeal be processed as an emergency appeal. You request that another UCC evaluate your Central File. Lastly, you request leave be granted to pursue any course of action under civil proceedings.

INTERVIEWED BY: J. Benavidez, Correctional Sergeant at the First Level of Review.

REGULATIONS: The rules governing this issue are:

California Penal Code Section (PC) 832.5. Citizen's complaints against personnel; investigation; retention and maintenance of records; removal of complaints; access to records

(a) Each department or agency in this state that employs peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against the personnel of these departments or agencies, and shall make a written description of the procedure available to the public.

(PC 832.7. Personnel records; confidentiality; discovery; excaptions; complaint disposition notification

(a) Peace officer personnel records and records maintained by any state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. . . .

(e) The department or agency shall provide written notification to the complaining party of the disposition of the complaint within 30 days of the disposition.

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section (CCR) 3004. Rights and Respect of Others.

(a) Inmates and parolees have the right to be treated respectfully, impartially, and fairly by all employees. Inmates and parolees have the responsibility to treat others in the same manner. . . .

CCR 3391. Employee Conduct.

(a) . . . Irresponsible or unethical conduct or conduct reflecting discredit on themselves or the Department. . . .

DISCUSSION:

Upon review of the documentation submitted, it is concluded that your allegations have been reviewed and evaluated by appropriate administrative staff. A thorough appeal inquiry of your complaint issue was concluded staff on March 15, 2006, at the First Level of Review.

In the event that staff misconduct was sustained, the institution would take the appropriate course of action. All staff personnel matters are confidential in nature and not privy to the inquiries of other staff, the general public or the inmate population, and would not be released to you. However, upon completion of final review, or culmination of an investigation, you are to be notified by the respective investigative body that an inquiry has been completed. In your case, the complaint was reviewed and decision was rendered. You were made aware of the First Level decision.

DECISION: The appeal is partially granted.

Your request that this appeal be processed as an emergency appeal and that another UCC evaluate your Central file is partially granted, in that your allegations regarding UCC and Mr. Long have been thoroughly reviewed. Your Central file was also reviewed and Mr. Long was interviewed. Additionally, all pertinent departmental regulations were reviewed concerning your issue. Your appeal issue does not qualify for emergency appeal processing per CCR 3084.7.

Your request to be granted leave to pursue any course of action under civil proceedings is denied. This request alludes to leave or release from custody to pursue civil judicial matters. This request is not reasonable and your case factors do not meet any CDCR criterion for a temporary community leave.

You are advised that this issue may be submitted for a Director's Level of Review.

ROBERT A. HOREL

Warden (A)

Exhibit Memorandum

Date: December 23, 2005 To: EDWARDS, K-88642 15-J-1L California State Prison-Solano Subject: FIRST LEVEL APPEAL RESPONSE LOG NO.: SOL 05-03253 ISSUE:

This is in response to your appeal submitted for a First Level review, Log # CSPS-05-03253. In your appeal you claim that CSP-SOL classification staff are retaliating against you for filing a lawsuit by inappropriately denying you Min B custody. You request on appeal to be granted Min B custody and to be transferred to a lower level facility.

RESPONSE:

On December 9, 2005, R. Long, Correctional Counselor II (CCII), interviewed you for a First Level appeal response, to provide you the opportunity to fully explain your appeal and supply any evidence supporting your claim. During the interview you reiterated your original appeal issues. You had no further evidence to supply to supporting your claim.

On December 23, 2005, R. Long, conducted a thorough review, which included an analysis of the your appeal, your central file (C-File), related CCR Sections, related PC Sections, State of California Memorandum, dated September 2, 2004, authored by Cheryl Pliler, Deputy Director Institutions Division, and a personal interview with you.

Your claim that CSP-SOL classification staff are retaliating against you for filing a lawsuit by inappropriately denying you Min B custody is unsubstantiated. Due to your request for lower level placement, your assigned CCI prepared your case for Unit Classification Committee (UCC) review. During the preparation of your case your assigned CC1 noted a 3/13/94, arrest that included Terrorist Threats, use of a weapon and injuries to the victim. Pursuant to departmental policy the corresponding arrest report was ordered so that UCC could conduct a case by case violence review. On 12/20/05, UCC review the 3/13/94, arrest report. The report indicated that you punched the victim (your fiancé) in the face knocking her to the ground. You then grabbed her by the neck and dragged her into an alley. In the alley you produced a knife and held it to her throat while telling her. "Bitch I gonna kill you." The victim sustained a swollen right eye, a bite mark on her upper torso, and cuts on her nose/lip. During UCC you repeatedly attempted to tell them that they could not review the arrest report, because you were not convicted of any crime. The arrest report indicates that you received 180 days in jail and were ordered to participate in an Anger Management class. After reviewing the arrest report UCC noted that you had the means and intent to carryout the Terrorist Threat. UCC determined that pursuant to CCR Section 3375.2(b)(25), the case meets the criteria for a violence (VIO) administrative determinant. The case was referred to the Classification Staff Representative (CSR) for review. If the CSR imposes the VIO administrative determinant, you will receive a mandatory minimum classification score of 19 and you will be permanently ineligible for Min B custody. If the CSR disagrees with the UCC determination then your case will be scheduled for an Institutional Classification Committee (ICC) review.

DECISION:

All submitted documentation and supporting arguments have been considered. Your request to be granted Min B custody and to be transferred to a lower level facility is pending CSR determination. Pursuant to CCR Section 3084.3(c)(3), you are appealing an anticipated action or decision. If dissatisfied with the First Level response you have the right to submit this appeal to the Second Level for review.

D. R. Johns

Associate Warden

Level III Operations Memorandum

Date: February 27, 2006 To: EDWARDS, L., K-88642 15-J-1-L California State Prison-Solano Subject: SECOND LEVEL APPEAL RESPONSE LOG NO.: SOL 05-03253 ISSUE:

It is your position that California State Prison (CSP-Solano) classification staff are retaliating against you for filing a lawsuit by inappropriately denying you Minimum B (Min B) custody.

You request on appeal to be granted Min B custody and to be transferred to a lower level facility.

INTERVIEWED BY: R. Long, Correctional Counselor-II (Supervisor) at the First Level of review.

REGULATIONS: The rules governing this issue are:

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section (CCR) 3084.1. Right to Appeal.

. . . (a) Any inmate or parolee under the department's jurisdiction may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy, which they can demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.

CCR. 3375.2. Administrative Determinants.

. . . (b) The following three-letter codes are used to indicate those administrative or irregular placement conditions known as administrative determinates, which may be imposed by departmental officials to override the placement of an inmate at a facility according to his/her classification score.

. . . (25) VIO. Inmate has a current or prior conviction for a violent felony, or a sustained adjudication including, but not limited to, those listed under Penal Code Section 667.5(c), which, as determined by the CSR, requires placement in a facility with a higher security level than that indicated by his/her placement score.

CCR 3270. General Policy.

. . . The requirement of custodial security and of staff, inmate and public safety must take precedence over all other considerations in the operation of all the programs and activities of the institutions of the Department.

DISCUSSION:

On January 9, 2006, your appeal was denied at the First Level of review. You were advised that the case was referred to the Classification Staff Representative (CSR) for review. If the CSR imposes the Violence (VIO) administrative determinant, you will receive a mandatory minimum classification score of 19 and you will be permanently ineligible for Min B custody. If the CSR disagrees with the Unit Classification Committee (UCC) determination then your case will be scheduled for an Institutional Classification Committee (ICC) for review.

On January 10, 2006, you request Second Level review of the First Level response. You contend that you are dissatisfied with the first level response.

DECISION: The appeal is denied at the Second Level of review

Your request to be granted Min B custody and to be transferred to a lower level facility is denied. On December 20, 2005, UCC reviewed your case factors and recommended VIO to the CSR due the March 13, 1994 arrest that included Terrorist Threats, use of a weapon and injures to the victim. On February 23, 2006 the CSR endorsed your case to CSP-Solano II with a VIO determinant. You have failed to provide supporting documentation or information to support your contention to be granted Min. B custody and transferred to a lower level facility.

You are advised that this issue may be submitted for a Director's Level of Review.

TOM L. CAREY

Warden

EXHIBIT

IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF CRIM JUSTICE CTR (LAC) JUDICIAL DISTRICT,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

NO. 94R03860 PAGE NO. 1 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. CURRENT DATE 08/07/06 DEFENDANT 01: LARRY DON EDWARDS

LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY EFFECTING ARREST: LAPD — RAMPART AREA

BAIL: APPEARANCE AMOUNT DATE RECEIPT OR SURETY COMPANY REGISTER DATE OF BAIL POSTED BOND NO. NUMBER CASE FILED ON 03/15/94. COMPLAINT FILED, DECLARED OR SWORN TO CHARGING DEFENDANT WITH HAVING COMMITTED, ON OR ABOUT 03/13/94 IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, THE FOLLOWING OFFENSE(S) OF: COUNT 01: 242-243(E) PC MISD — VIOLNCE USED AGAINST SPOUSE. COUNT 02: 417(A)(1) PC MISD — EXHBT DEAD WEAF OTH THAN FIREA. COUNT 03: 422 PC MISD — MAKING A CRIMINAL THREAT. PROBABLE CAUSE FOUND 3-14-94 AT 13:48. NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT: 03/15/94 830 AM ARRAIGNMENT DIST CENTRAL ARRAIGN CTHOUSE DIV 080 ON 03/15/94 AT 830 AM IN CENTRAL ARRAIGN CTHOUSE DIV 080 CASE CALLED FOR ARRAIGNMENT PARTIES: COMR. DAVID STEPHENS (JUDGE) MILDRED ATKINS (CLERK) CHERYL JAMISON (REP) LYNN MAGNANDONOVAN (CA) DEFENDANT IS PRESENT IN COURT, AND REPRESENTED BY H. MILLER DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

DEFENDANT PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO COUNT 01, 242-243(E) PC — VIOLNCE USED AGAINST SPOUSE.

DEFENDANT PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO COUNT 02, 417(A)(1) PC — EXHBT DEAD WEAP OTH THAN FIREA.

DEFENDANT PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO COUNT 03, 422 PC — MAKING A CRIMINAL THREAT. DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE DUE 032894;MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICED TO BE HEARD AT TIME OF TRIAL

BAIL SET AT $13,000.

NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT: 03/28/94 800 AM PRETRIAL HEARING DIST CENTRAL ARRAIGN CTHOUSE DIV 040 NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT 2: 03/15/94 830 AM BAIL REVIEW DIST CENTRAL ARRAIGN CTHOUSE DIV 083 CUSTODY STATUS: REMANDED TO CUSTODY ON 03/15/94 AT 900 AM IN CENTRAL ARRAIGN CTHOUSE DIV 083 CASE CALLED FOR ARRAIGNMENT PARTIES: BARRY TAYLOR (JUDGE) JOSE CANCEL (CLERK) CAROLE MOORE (REP) SANDRA JO STREETER () DEFENDANT IS PRESENT IN COURT, AND REPRESENTED BY HENDERSON DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

BAIL SET AT $13,000

BAIL REVIEW IS DENIED;BAIL TO REMAIN

NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT:

MATTER PREV SET/REMAIN ON CLDR

CUSTODY STATUS: REMANDED TO CUSTODY

ON 03/28/94 AT 800 AM IN CRIM JUSTICE CTR (LAC) DIV 040 CASE NO. 94R03860 PAGE NO. 2 DEF NO. 01 DATE PRINTED 08/07/06 CASE CALLED FOR PRETRIAL HEARING PARTIES: PETER D. LICHTMAN (JUDGE) DENISE GONZALEZ (CLERK) LAUREN ENGEL (REP) RICHARD WONG (CA) DEFENDANT IS NOT PRESENT IN COURT, BUT REPRESENTED BY J. CROWTHER DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

BAIL SET AT $13,000

THE DEFENDANT IS REPRESENTED 977(A) P.C.

NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT: 04/11/94 800 AM JURY TRIAL DIST CENTRAL ARRAIGN CTHOUSE DIV 040 CUSTODY STATUS: REMANDED TO CUSTODY ON 04/11/94 AT 800 AM IN CRIM JUSTICE CTR (LAC) DIV 040 CASE CALLED FOR JURY TRIAL PARTIES: PETER D. LICHTMAN (JUDGE) DENISE GONZALEZ (CLERK) PATRICIA MCNEAL (REP) ANDREA YEE (CA) DEFENDANT IS PRESENT IN COURT, AND REPRESENTED BY CROWTHER DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

BAIL SET AT $13,000

DEFENSE MOTIONS TO CONTINUE ON 4-14-94 IN DIVISION 40.

NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT: 04/14/94 800 AM JURY TRIAL DIST CENTRAL ARRAIGN CTHOUSE DIV 040 CUSTODY STATUS: REMANDED TO CUSTODY ON 04/14/94 AT 800 AM IN CRIM JUSTICE CTR (LAC) DIV 040 CASE CALLED FOR JURY TRIAL PARTIES: PETER D. LICHTMAN (JUDGE) LORRAINE VALDEZ (CLERK) PATRICIA MCNEAL (REP) ANDREA YEE (CA) DEFENDANT IS PRESENT IN COURT, AND REPRESENTED BY PAYNE DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

DEFENDANT ADVISED OF AND PERSONALLY AND EXPLICITLY WAIVES THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS:

WRITTEN ADVISEMENT OF RIGHTS AND WAIVERS FILED, INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE HEREIN

TRIAL BY COURT AND TRIAL BY JURY

CONFRONTATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES;

SUBPOENA OF WITNESSES INTO COURT TO TESTIFY IN YOUR DEFENSE;

AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION;

DEFENDANT ADVISED OF THE FOLLOWING:

THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE IN THE COMPLAINT, AND POSSIBLE DEFENSES TO SUCH CHARGES;

THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF A PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE, INCLUDING THE MAXIMUM PENALTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS AND THE POSSIBLE LEGAL EFFECTS AND MAXIMUM PENALTIES INCIDENT TO SUBSEQUENT CONVICTIONS FOR THE SAME OR SIMILAR OFFENSES;

THE EFFECTS OF PROBATION;

IF YOU ARE NOT A CITIZEN, YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED THAT A CONVICTION OF THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WILL HAVE THE CONSEQUENCES OF DEPORTATION, EXCLUSION FROM ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES, OR DENIAL OF NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES;

CASE NO. 94R03860 PAGE NO. 3 DEF NO. 01 DATE PRINTED 08/07/06

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT JOINS IN THE WAIVERS AND CONCURS IN THE PLEA.

COURT FINDS THAT EACH SUCH WAIVER IS KNOWINGLY, UNDERSTANDINGLY, AND EXPLICITLY MADE;

THE DEFENDANT PERSONALLY WITHDRAWS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY TO COUNT 01 AND PLEADS NOLO CONTENDERE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT TO A VIOLATION OF SECTION 242-243(E) PC IN COUNT 01. THE COURT FINDS THE DEFENDANT GUILTY.

COUNT (01): DISPOSITION: CONVICTED

COURT FINDS THAT THERE IS A FACTUAL BASIS FOR DEFENDANT'S PLEA, AND COURT ACCEPTS PLEA.

NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT:

SENTENCING

AS TO COUNT (01):

IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE SUSPENDED

DEFENDANT PLACED ON SUMMARY PROBATION

FOR A PERIOD OF 036 MONTHS UNDER THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

SERVE 060 DAYS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL

LESS CREDIT FOR 33 DAYS

OBEY ALL LAWS AND FURTHER ORDERS OF THE COURT.

DEFENDANT SHALL ENROLL IN AND SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE 1 YEAR OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUNSELING PROGRAM.

DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO APPEAR IN DIVISION 40 ON 6-16-94 FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON COUNSELING.

DEFENDANT SHALL NOT OWN, USE, POSSESS, BUY OR SELL ANY DANGEROUS OR DEADLY WEAPONS, INCLUDING ANY FIREARMS, KNIVES OR OTHER CONCEALABLE WEAPONS. THE WEAPON INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS ORDERED CONFISCATED AND DESTROYED BY THE ARRESTING AGENCY.

DEFENDANT SHALL NOT ANNOY, HARASS OR MOLEST ANYONE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. DO NOT THREATEN ANYONE. DO NOT USE FORCE OR VIOLENCE AGAINST ANYONE. STAY AT LEAST 100 YARDS AWAY FROM ANY VICTIM OR WITNESS IN THIS CASE OR FROM THE LOCATION OF THE ARREST, ESPECIALLY KATHY QUAMMIZ AND 756 S. CARONDELET ST., LOS ANGELES.

DEFENDANT GIVEN 33 DAYS CREDIT TIME SERVED.

DEFENDANT COMMITTED; COMMITMENT ISSUED.

COUNT (01): DISPOSITION: CONVICTED

REMAINING COUNTS DISMISSED: COUNT (02): DISMISSED DUE TO PLEA NEGOTIATION COUNT (03): DISMISSED DUE TO PLEA NEGOTIATION DMV ABSTRACT NOT REQUIRED NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT: 06/16/94 800 AM PROGRESS REPORT DIST CENTRAL ARRAIGN CTHOUSE DIV 040 ON 04/27/94 AT 800 AM: ADR ISSUED ON 4-25-94. ON 06/16/94 AT 800 AM IN CRIM JUSTICE CTR (LAC) DIV 040 CASE CALLED FOR PROGRESS REPORT PARTIES: PETER D. LICHTMAN (JUDGE) DENISE GONZALEZ (CLERK) STEPHEN DONES (REP) ANDREA YEE () DEFENDANT IS NOT PRESENT IN COURT, BUT REPRESENTED BY PAYNE DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

PROBATION REVOKED

AS TO COUNT (01):

DEFENDANT NOT IN COURT FOR PROGRESS REPORT.

NO LEGAL EXCUSE FOR DEFENDANT BEING ABSENT.

BENCH WARRANT ORDERED AND ISSUED. BAIL $15,000.00.

CASE NO. 94R03860 PAGE NO. 4 DEF NO. 01 DATE PRINTED 08/07/06

DMV ABSTRACT NOT REQUIRED

NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT:

BENCH/WARRANT ISSUED

06/16/94 BENCH WARRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000.00 BY ORDER OF JUDGE PETER D. LICHTMAN ISSUED. (06/17/94).

ON 12/15/94 AT 800 AM IN CRIM JUSTICE CTR (LAC) DIV 040

CASE CALLED FOR PROGRESS REPORT

PARTJES: CMR. KRISTI LOUSTEAO (JUDGE) VICKY KEATING (CLERK) MARY MALDONADO (REP) RONALD LOW (CA) DEFENDANT IS PRESENT IN COURT, AND REPRESENTED BY NAVARRO DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

BAIL SET AT $15,000

BENCH WARRANT RECALLED AND QUASHED.

PROBATION REMAINS REVOKED, DENIAL OF PROBATION VIOLATION ENTERED.

NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT:

12/16/94 800 AM PROBATION VIOLATION HEARING DIST CENTRAL ARRAIGN CTHOUSE DIV 040 12/15/94 BENCH WARRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000.00 RECALLED. (12/15/94).

CUSTODY STATUS: REMANDED TO CUSTODY

ON 12/16/94 AT 800 AM IN CRIM JUSTICE CTR (LAC) DIV 040

CASE CALLED FOR PROBATION VIOLATION HEARING

PARTIES: CMR. KRISTI LOUSTEAU (JUDGE) VICKY KEATING (CLERK) MARY MALDONADO (REP) RICHARD WONG (CA) STIPULATED THAT CMR. KRISTI LOUSTEAU (JUDGE) MAY HEAR THE CAUSE AS TEMPORARY JUDGE.

DEFENDANT IS PRESENT IN COURT, AND REPRESENTED BY R. RILEY DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

THE DEFENDANT IS ADVISED OF RIGHTS RE HEARING ON VIOLATION AND WAIVES RIGHTS

TO A REVOCATION HEARING.

DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL STIPULATE TO VIOLATION OF PROBATION IN OPEN COURT.

COURT FINDS DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF PROBATION.

PROBATION REINSTATED.

PROBATION MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

AS TO COUNT (01):

SERVE ADDITIONAL 004 DAYS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL LESS CREDIT FOR ADDITIONAL 004 DAYS

IN VIOLATION OF PROBATION CONDITION: FAILURE TO ATTEND COUNSELING PROGRAM AS ORDERED.

DEFENDANT SHALL ENROLL IN AND COMPLETE A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUNSELING PROGRAM AND SHOW PROOF OF ENROLLMENT IN DIVISION 40 ON 1-3-95.

DEFENDANT RELEASED. O.R. #1102560 ISSUED.

DMV ABSTRACT NOT REQUIRED

CASE NO. 94R03860 PAGE NO. 5 DEF NO. 01 DATE PRINTED 08/07/06 NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT: 01/03/95 800 AM PROOF OF ENROLLMENT DIST CENTRAL ARRAIGN CTHOUSE DIV 040 ON 01/03/95 AT 800 AM IN CRIM JUSTICE CTR (LAC) DIV 040

CASE CALLED FOR PROOF OF ENROLLMENT

PARTIES: CMR. KRISTI LOUSTEAU (JUDGE) VICKY KEATING (CLERK) CAROLE MOORE (REP) GAIL PETERSON (CA) DEFENDANT IS PRESENT IN COURT, AND REPRESENTED BY R. RILEY DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

DEFENDANT ORDERED BACK FOR PROOF OF ENROLLMENT AND PROGRESS REPORT RE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUNSELING.

NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT:

02/03/95 800 AM PROGRESS REPORT DIST CENTRAL ARRAIGN CTHOUSE DIV 040 ON 02/03/95 AT 800 AM IN CRIM JUSTICE CTR (LAC) DIV 040 CASE CALLED FOR PROGRESS REPORT PARTIES: CMR. KRISTI LOUSTEAU (JUDGE) VICKY KEATING (CLERK) ALFONSO PEREZ (REP) ANGELA WEST (CA) DEFENDANT IS NOT PRESENT IN COURT, BUT REPRESENTED BY R. RILEY DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

PROBATION REVOKED

AS TO COUNT (01) :

DEFENDANT NOT IN COURT FOR PROGRESS REPORT RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUNSELING PROGRAM. NO LEGAL EXCUSE GIVEN FOR DEFENDANT BEING ABSENT. BENCH WARRANT ORDERED AND ISSUED. O.R. REVOKED.

DMV ABSTRACT NOT REQUIRED

NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT:

BENCH/WARRANT ISSUED 02/03/95 BENCH WARRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000.00 BY ORDER OF JUDGE CMR. KRISTI LOUSTEAU ISSUED. (02/06/95). ON 02/28/96 AT 800 AM :

BENCH WARRANT RECALLED

NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT:

02/28/96 830 AM POSSIBLE VIOL. OF PROBATION DIST CENTRAL ARRAIGN CTHOUSE DIV 080 ON 02/28/96 AT 830 AM IN CENTRAL ARRAIGN CTHOUSE DIV 080

CASE CALLED FOR POSSIBLE VIOL. OF PROBATION

PARTIES: COMR. KIRKLAND NYBY (JUDGE) LINDA LUCAS (CLERK) STEPHEN DONES (REP) PATRICIA BILGIN (CA) DEFENDANT IS PRESENT IN COURT, AND REPRESENTED BY THOMAS SUMMERS DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

BAIL SET AT $15,000

NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT:

03/14/96 800 AM PROBATION VIOLATION HEARING DIST CRIM JUSTICE CTR (LAC) DIV 040 CASE NO. 94R03860 PAGE NO. 6 DEF NO. 01 DATE PRINTED 08/07/06 02/28/96 BENCH WARRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000.00 RECALLED. (02/28/96).

CUSTODY STATUS: REMANDED TO CUSTODY

ON 03/14/96 AT 800 AM IN CRIM JUSTICE CTR (LAC) DIV 040

CASE CALLED FOR PROBATION VIOLATION HEARING

PARTIES: CMR. KRISTI LOUSTEAU (JUDGE) EDWARD LOPEZ (CLERK) SUSAN DE BEAUVOIR (REP) DAVID SHEPHERD (CA) STIPULATED THAT CMR. KRISTI LOUSTEAU (JUDGE) MAY HEAR THE CAUSE AS TEMPORARY JUDGE.

DEFENDANT IS PRESENT IN COURT, AND REPRESENTED BY CABELL PRIVATE COUNSEL DEFENDANT WAIVES RIGHT TO ATTORNEY AND HEARING ON VIOLATION OF PROBATION. IN ADDITION, DEFENDANT WAIVES A HEARING PURSUANT TO MORRISEY V. BREWER ON VIOLATION OF PROBATION.

DEFENDANT STIPULATES TO VIOLATION OF PROBATION IN OPEN COURT.

COURT FINDS DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF PROBATION.

PROBATION REINSTATED.

PROBATION IS CONTINUED ON THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

AS TO COUNT (01) :

SERVE ADDITIONAL 180 DAYS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL LESS CREDIT FOR ADDITIONAL 018 DAYS

DEFENDANT WAIVES ARRAIGNMENT ON THE PROBATION VIOLATION.

IN VIOLATION OF PROBATION CONDITIONS; FAILURE TO OBEY ALL LAWS:

REFERENCE CASE #6CR08919 AND FAILURE TO ATTEND COUNSELING PROGRAM.

COUNSELING PROGRAM IS DELETED.

JAIL TIME IS CONCURRENT WITH: #6CR08919.

DEFENDANT COMMITTED. COMMITMENT ISSUED.

DMV ABSTRACT NOT REQUIRED

NEXT SCHEDULED EVENT:

PROCEEDINGS TERMINATED

August 7, 2006

EXHIBIT

Exhibit"COPY RETAINED" INMATE/PAROLEE APPEAL FORM

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Location: Institution/Parole Region Log No. Category 1. ____________________ 1. ____________________ ____________________ CDC 802 (12/87) 2. ____________________ 2. ____________________ You may appeal any policy, action or decision which has a significant adverse affect upon you. With the exception of Serious CDC 115s, classification committee actions, and classification and staff representative decisions, you must first informally seek relief through discussion with the appropriate staff member, who will sign your form and state what action was taken. If you are not then satisfied, you may send your appeal with all the supporting documents and not more than one additional page of comments to the Appeals Coordinator within 15 days of the action taken. No reprisals will be taken for using the appeals procedure responsibly. NAME NUMBER ASSIGNMENT UNIT/ROOM NUMBER LARRY EDWARDS K-88642 BRIBGING PROGRAM 15-J-1-L A. Describe Problem: I received documentation from the court that verified the offens that were used to place me under the violent exclusion did not meet the criteria. With this information I request a administrative review, but CCI Weaverre refused to take me back to UCC to have a review on this administrative placement. However she did take me to committee to be review for a job change assignment. While there I attempted to bring this issue up to CCII K. Baughmen, and requested a administrative review concerning my placement under the violent exclusion, Per CCR Section 3375.2(b) 25.

If you need more space, attach one additional sheet. SEE ATTACHED

B. Action Requested: That this Appellant be given another Administrative review regarding his placement so that his court documentation can and will be used in his behalf. That the UCC committee follow the clear established rules, and remove the vio placement, and reccommend Appellant for minimum custody. That CCI Weaver And CCII K. Baughman be trained and reprimanded.9-2-06

Inmate/Parolee Signature: ________________ Date Submitted: C. INFORMALLEVEL (Date Received: __________)

Staff Response: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

Staff Signature: ________________________________________ Date Returned to Inmate: ______________ D. FORMAL LEVEL

If you are dissatisfied, explain below, attach supporting documents (Complated CDC 115, Investigator's Report, Classification chrano. CDC 128, etc.) and submit to the Institution/Parole Region Appeals Coordinator for processing within 15 days of receipt of response.

_______________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

Signature: __________________________________________________ Date Submitted: ____________________ Note: Property/Funds appeals must be accompanied by a completed CDC Appeal Number:

Board of Control form BC-1E, Inmate Claim

That the rules cause for an Inmate to have a current or prior conviction of a "Violent Felony". And that Per CCR Section 3375(R)(j)(2)(3)(4). states that an Inmate shall provide verifiable documentation. CCII K. Baughman stated the vio exclusion that I was placed on, was appropriate and that after review by the committee and the CSR Board both found that the placement based on the committee's decision was appropriate. I explain that the rules and regulation in this matter cause for the Inmate to have a current or prior conviction for a "Violent Felony. And that the offenses that were used in my matter was in fact "Misdemeanors", and should have not been used because of what the rules clearly stated. CCII K. Baughman, stated that the committee are allowed to interpret from the police reports whether they are felonies or misdemeanors any thing they choose.

When a law, statute, penal code, rule or regulation in clear language and clearly established, there is no other interpretation can be found. CDC has created regulation governing classification and must follow their own rules. The Court has ordered CDC to comply with its own rules, even when they preferred not to, because of the benefit, resulting to the prisoner.

Appellant also argues the point that Warden D.K. Sisto, being the Chief Executive Officer of the Institution and is responsible legally, for allowing CCI Weaver, CCII K. Baughman and others continue to create their own rules and regulation and create their own interpretation of clearly established laws of the department and not follow the rules and regulation of their employee. The State Department Of Corrections. Warden D.K. Sisto responsibilities are set foth in California Penal Code 2079, CCR Section 3000.5.

CCI Weaver and CCII K. Baughman has breached their fiduciary duties when they refused to follow the rules and regulation set forth by the department of correction, and proceeded to make their own rules and regulations, making reform impossible to the prisoner.

It is well settle that and administrative regulation has the force of law, and is binding. In plain language CDC and its Employees shall follow their own rules.

DECEMBER 27, 2005 TO: FROM: Larry Edwards, K-88642 SUBOECT: REHABILITATION On July 1, 2005, The Department of Corrections, stated that they would no longer be an entity based solely on punishment. They said they would also be implementing programs and activities centered around rehabilitation. They even cemented this change in direction and focus, by changing their name to The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Definition of Rehabilitation:

(1). To restore or bring to a condition of health and useful constructive activity. (2). To restore to good repute or former capacity.

When a prisoner enters The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the transition to rehabilitation begins with an assessment of the prisoner by a Correctional Counselor. This assessment is continuous throughout the period of the prisoner's incarceration.

Definition of a Counselor:

(1). An adviser, (2). To give guidance, (3). To counsel for a plan of action.

However, some of these counselors have not changed their attitudes, perjudice and reflect that of the new CDCR. On the contrary, these counselors are impeding on every effort made by the prisoners to make full use of the process of rehabilitation and the programs in effect within the new CDCR. It is truly unconscionable that upper level CDCR staff would allow these counselors to block progress towards rehabilitation of prisoners. That upper level CDCR staff allow these counselors to cripple the process and progress of the prisoner by allowing their personal resentment of the prisoner or a particular offense that a prisoners incarceration may be based on. By allowing a prisoners prior record of other offenses to be a continuing reason and disability to justify their hidden agenda. Where a counselor personal views and agendas supersedes the definition of their job title and blocks the professional norm, then the process and progress of rehabilitation can not be

I fear that, not until an independent panel or committee comes in and directs these counselors to comply with the mission of the new CDCR, the recidivism rate and lack of trust within CDCR will continue to increase. Let us work to ensure the mission of the new CDCR towards rehabilitation is not lost by the parsonal views of those entrenched counselors who would rather continue old policy of hate, revenge, and punishment for past behavior.

CDCR cannot allow the policies, personal views, and hidden agendas of these counselors to dictate the new construction that has been put in place, if rehabilitation is truly to be found.

No one put's a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved. (Matthew 9:16-17).

Larry Edwards, K-88642

Facility 3, Building 15-J-1-L

C.C.P. Solano, Level 2

P.O. Box-4000

Vacaville, CA. 95696-4000

EXHIBIT

CDC NUMBER: NAME: CS: COMMITTEE ACTION: CUSTODY: ASSIGNMENT: WG/PG: NEXT CLASS: TYPE-RELEASE DATE:

K88642 EDWARDS, L. 6 O/R TLM REFER TO CSR RX. CHANGE L TO P. MED A OSRT A1A EFF. 8/31/99 ADMIN. DETERMINATE OF VIOLENCE. 4/06 1/5 EPRD 4/21/41 EDWARDS, L., K88642, appeared before Facility III UCC for Program Review. Complied with CCR 3375(f)(1). CDC 127, 812, 840, and confidential file have been reviewed and updated as appropriate. Inmate participated and disagreed with the proposed Committee actions. Inmate was advised of his rights to appeal the Committee actions.

Commitment Offense: Burglary 1^st sentenced 17 years, Multi-termer.

Classification score remains 6 O/R Time. No Arson, Sex Offenses, TB Code 22 5/18/05, GPL: 11.5, No CCCMS 1845 in file noting Mobility Impairment Partial Paralysis of right arm, No gang, Enemy is noted, Confidential file is noted, Escape Breaking jail dated 7/12/72, Jefferson City Correctional Center. Sentenced 2 years, discharged arrest report ordered 5/2/73 Fugitive from justice 6/24/88 Parole Violation Absconding Dispo 10 months Prison. Agent noted 10/19/88 Edwards misuse of telephone made death threats to family possess a serious danger to the community as a whole. Case by case review on Spousal Abuse arrest report dated 3/13/94 officers observed Edwards strike a female in the face with his fist causing her to fall to the ground. He then grabbed her by the throat and began to drag her into an alley. He pushed her to the ground and stood over her he produced a knife with a 5 1/2 inch blade. Stating "I have had it with you bitch, I am gonna kill you". At this time the officers advised Edwards to drop the knife and move away from this victim. Arrest report dated 4/3/90 Spousal Abuse 2 victim's suffered swollen right eye, bite marks on upper torso. Arrest report dated 2/28/96 Battery on Non-Cohab Former Spouse arrest reported ordered. Inmate has appeared to establish a pattern of Spousal Abuse. It's UCC determination that Edwards's intent was to seriously injure the victims Pursuant to CCR Section 3375.2(b)(25). This case meets the criteria for Violence Administrative Determinant.

COMMITTEE ACTION: REFER TO CSR RX. CHANGE L TO P ADMIN DETERMINATE OF VIOLENCE. CDC NUMBER: NAME: CS: COMMITTEE ACTION: CUSTODY: ASSIGNMENT: WG/PG: NEXT CLASS: TYPE-RELEASE DATE:

E. SAUCEDO M. CORIOSO R. LONG CC-I/Recorder CC-II(A) FACILITY CAPT. (A)/CHAIRMAN Institution: Facility/House: Action Date: Signature: CSP-SOLANO III/15-J-IL 12/20/05 K88642 EDWARDS, LARRY 19 REAFFIRM ACTION 12/20/05. REFER TO MED A OSRT A1A EFF. 8/31/99 CSR CHANGE L TO P VIO. 4/06 1/5 EPRD 4/2/11 EDWARDS, LARRY, K88642, appeared before Facility III UCC for Program Review. Complied with CCR 3375(f)(1). CDC 127, 812, 840, and confidential file have been reviewed and updated as appropriate. Inmate participated and disagreed with the proposed Committee actions. Inmate was advised of his rights to appeal the Committee actions.

Commitment offense: Burglary 1^st sentenced 17 years, Multi-termer.

Classification score remains 6 O/R Time. No Arson, Sex offenses, TB Code 22 5/18/05, GPL: 11.5, No CCCMS 1845 in file noting Mobility Impairment Partial Paralysis of right arm, No gang, Enemy is noted, Confidential file is noted, Escape breaking jail dated 7/12/72, Jefferson City Correctional Center. Sentenced 2 years, discharged arrest report ordered 5/2/73 Fugitive from justice 6/24/88 Parole Violations Absconding dispo 10 months prison. Agent noted 10/19/98 Edwards misuse of telephone made death threats to family possess a serious danger to the community as a whole. Case by case review on Spousal Abuse arrest report dated 3/13/94 officers observed Edwards strike a female in the face with his fist causing her to fall to the ground. He then grabbed her by the throat and began to drag her into an alley. He pushed her to the ground and stood over her he produced a knife with a 5 1/2 inch blade. Stating "I have had it with you bitch, I am gonna kill you". At this time the officers advised Edwards to drop the knife and move away from this victim. Arrest report dated 4/3/90 Spousal Abuse 2 victim's suffered swollen right eye. Bite marks on upper torso. Arrest report dated 2/28/96 Battery on Non-cohab Former Spouse arrest reported ordered. Inmate has appeared to establish a pattern of Spousal Abuse.

Police report dated 2/26/96 the victim (Security Guard) approached Edwards (aka) Davis Tyrone and advised him to leave the location. Edwards became enraged shouted obscenities at the victim. As the victim approached Edwards to remove him. Edwards displayed a flat head screwdriver to the victim and stabbed him in the right hand on the knuckles and fled the scene. Edwards was arrested and charged with Assault w/Deadly Weapon PC 245(A). The victim suffered a 1/4 inch puncture wound his right hand by the knuckles.

It's UCC determination that Edwards's intent was to seriously injure the victims Pursuant to 3375.2(b)(25) the cases involved meet the criteria for an Administrative Determinant for Violence. Additional information refer to 128G dated 4/28/05.

COMMITTEE ACTION: REAFFIRM ACTION 12/20/05. REFER TO CSR CHANGE L TO P VIO.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS: CCI K. Medina, CCI B. Johnson.

E. SAUCEDO R. BLACKWELL R. LONG CC-I/Recorder CC-II(A) FACILITY CAPT. (A)/CHAIRMAN Institution: Facility/House: Action Date: Signature: CSP-SOLANO III/13-X-5U 1/31/06 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I inmate SIDNEY M. Brown, CDC NO: T-93741, HOUSING UNIT15-I-3-L, DO DECLARE UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT DURING THE MONTHS OF AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, AND PART OF NOVEMBER, CCI SAUCEDO STATED TO INMATE EDWARDS AS WELL AS TO MYSELF THAT SHE HAD TO TAKE US BACK TO CLASSIFICATION. SHE TOLD INMATE EDWARDS THAT THE POLICE REPORT WASN'T BAD. SHE NEVER MENTION ANY OF THOSE THINGS THAT I HEARD HER TELL INMATE EDWARDS THE OTHER DAY NOVEMBER 18, 2005. EVERY THING SHE STATED TO US BOTH WAS ALWAYS GOOD, THAT SHE WAS SWAMPED WITH WORK TO DO AND OTHER CASES AND PAROLE BOARD CASES, AND THAT AS SOON AS SHE GETS FINISHED SE WOULD GET TO US. BUT SHE NEVER TOLD INMATE EDWARDS THAT A BAD REPORT HAD CAME BACK SHE ALWAYS SAID IT WAS ALL GOOD AND THAT SHE HAD TO GET US BOTH OUT OF HERE.

I SWEAR UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT WHAT I HAVE STATED IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND HAPPEN AS I HAVE TOLD IT, AND BEARS MY SIGNATURE.

DATED Nov 20,, 2005LARRY EDWARDS K-88642 15-J-1-L PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

Name: CDC: CSP-Solano, Housing: P.O. Box 4000 Vacaville, CA 95696-4000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA __________________________________________________ ) ) Case No.: _______________ ) LARRY EDWARDS _______________________, ) ) Petitioner,) ) v. ) ) E.A. SAUCEDO, ET, AL ________________, ) ) Respondent.) ) ) _________________________________________________) I hereby certify that on September 17, 2006, I served a copy of the attached 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT, by placing a copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the United States Mail at the California State Prison — Solano, in Vacaville, California.UNITED STATES DOSTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT Parties Served: _________________________ __________________________ OF CALIFORNIA _________________________ __________________________ 501 I STREET _________________________ __________________________ SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.