1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE RAMON CRAVER, No. 2:22-cv-02144-DAD-AC (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 L. ABLES, et al., ACTION 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 9) 16 17 Plaintiff Andre Ramon Craver, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 18 has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under

. This matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 30, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 21 complaint (“FAC”) and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be 22 dismissed, without leave to amend, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon 23 which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 9.) In particular, the magistrate judge concluded that 24 plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim failed because he did not allege a loss of any 25 good time credits and instead only alleged that he was issued a counseling chrono, “which does 26 not amount to an atypical and significant hardship.” (Id. at 4.) In addition, the magistrate judge 27 concluded that plaintiff had already been provided one opportunity to amend his complaint and 28 that the granting of further leave to amend would be futile. (Id.) 1 Those pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 2 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. 3 at 5.) On November 11, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 4 (Doc. No. 10.) 5 In his objections, plaintiff contends that he was denied due process because he faced 6 disciplinary charges that included the loss of good time credits without receiving a copy of the 7 rule violation report or the opportunity to call witnesses, present evidence, or even attend the 8 disciplinary hearing. (Doc. No. 10 at 2–4.) Although the charges were reduced to a counseling 9 chrono after he was found guilty of a serious rule violation, plaintiff claims that the lack of these 10 procedures nonetheless violated his due process protections. (Id.) 11 The Due Process Clause protects against the deprivation of liberty without due process of 12 law. Wilkinson v. Austin,

(2005). To invoke this protection, a plaintiff must 13 first establish the existence of a liberty interest.

Liberty interests may arise from the Due 14 Process Clause itself or from state law.

Under state law, the existence of a liberty interest 15 established by prison regulations hinges on the nature of the deprivation. Sandin v. Conner, 515

, 481–84 (1995). Liberty interests created by state law are “generally limited to freedom 17 from restraint which . . . imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the 18 ordinary incidents of prison life.”

; Myron v. Terhune,

(9th Cir. 19 2007). 20 Here, plaintiff has failed to establish the deprivation of a liberty interest because the 21 imposition of a custodial counseling chrono is not “the type of atypical, significant deprivation 22 [that] might conceivably create a liberty interest.” 1 Id. at 486; see also Washington v. Rupp, No. 23

24 1 In his FAC, plaintiff alleges that the guilty finding, which was added to his central file, will be the basis of the parole board’s future decision to deny him parole. (Doc. No. 8 at ¶ 26.) 25 However, the undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge that the “speculative impact on plaintiff’s eligibility of parole also fail to demonstrate that he was subject to an atypical and 26 significant hardship.” (Doc. No. 9 at 4); see Parks v. Chavez, No. 12-cv-06018-EMC-PR, 2013

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2013) (“The possible effect of a disciplinary decision on later parole consideration is too speculative to say that the disciplinary decision has an inevitable 28 effect on the duration of the plaintiff’s sentence.”). 1 | 2:19-cv-10033-FMO-JC,

, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021) (holding that the 2 | plaintiffs allegations concerning the placement of a counseling chrono in his c-file did not 3 | present the type of atypical significant deprivation in which a state might conceivably create a 4 | liberty interest); Ramirez v. Woodford, No. 2:05-cv-01333-FCD-GGH,

, at *8 5 | (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2007) (“Plaintiff cannot complain of an ‘atypical or significant hardship’ by 6 | imposition of a custodial counseling chrono following an RVR disciplinary hearing.”), report and 7 || recommendation adopted, No. 2:05-cv-01333-FCD-GGH,

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 8 | 2007). For these reasons, plaintiff's objections do not provide any basis upon which to reject the 9 | pending findings and recommendations. 10 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 11 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs 12 | objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 13 | record and by proper analysis. 14 Accordingly, 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 30, 2023 (Doc. No. 9) are 16 adopted in full; 17 2. This action is dismissed without further leave to amend due to plaintiff's failure to 18 state a cognizable claim for relief; and 19 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _Mareh 22, 2024 Dal A. 2, axel 22 DALE A. DROZD 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28