Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Gonzales, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, sued two prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As alleged in his complaint and its exhibits, a urine sample collected after a November 2023 family visit at Centinela State Prison tested positive for morphine, and the lab report noted a possible diluted sample. He received a Rule Violation Report for using a controlled substance. At an August 2024 hearing, Defendant Thompson, the senior hearing officer, considered Gonzales's evidence and his argument that the sample was diluted or tampered with. Thompson found him guilty, reasoning that dilution would not create a false positive for morphine. Gonzales lost 30 days of credit. Defendant Zavala, the Chief Disciplinary Officer, affirmed in September 2024, and his administrative grievance and appeal were denied by January 2025.
The court had earlier denied in forma pauperis status because Gonzales had sufficient funds and dismissed the action; it reopened the case after he paid the $405 filing fee. Because he is a prisoner suing governmental officers, the complaint was screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Gonzales alleged due process violations and sought injunctive relief: reversal of the guilty finding, expungement of the report, and restoration of the credits. The court accepted his allegations as true for screening and made no factual findings.
The Court’s Holding
The court first held that Heck v. Humphrey did not bar the suit. A challenge that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a loss of good-time credits ordinarily must wait until the credit loss has been invalidated by other means. Gonzales states he is serving a life sentence, and the court took judicial notice that the state inmate locator lists it as life without the possibility of parole. The credit loss therefore would not necessarily shorten his confinement.
The same fact defeated the claim on the merits. The procedural protections of Wolff v. McDonnell apply only when a protected liberty interest is at stake, which arises when a sentence is exceeded in an unexpected manner or when restrictions impose atypical and significant hardship under Sandin v. Conner. Because credit loss makes no difference to the length of a life-without-parole term, the court concluded Gonzales had not alleged a protected liberty interest. It relied on district court decisions and an unpublished Ninth Circuit disposition.
The court added alternative reasoning. Even assuming a liberty interest, the exhibits showed notice, time to prepare, an opportunity to submit evidence, and a written decision. The positive lab result was also some evidence supporting the finding under the minimally stringent standard of Superintendent v. Hill, despite the dilution notation. The court distinguished Tinsley v. Fox, where a district court found the positive morphine result was some evidence even though the warden later dismissed the violation on administrative review. The court dismissed the complaint in its entirety and gave Gonzales until December 31, 2026 to file a first amended complaint that is complete in itself. It said success appears unlikely but that leave to amend is appropriate for a pro se inmate. If he does not amend, the court will enter a final order dismissing the action.
Key Takeaways
- The dismissal is with leave to amend, not a final judgment, and Gonzales may file a first amended complaint by December 31, 2026.
- Heck did not bar the claim because losing credits does not necessarily shorten a life sentence, so the court reached the merits.
- For a prisoner serving life without parole, the court found no protected liberty interest in 30 days of credits, so Wolff protections were not triggered.
- Even if Wolff applied, the court found the exhibits showed notice, an opportunity to present evidence, and a written decision, and that a positive lab result met Hill's some-evidence standard despite a dilution notation.
- An amended complaint must stand alone without reference to the original, and claims not re-alleged may be treated as waived.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court screening order, so it carries no precedential weight and binds no other court. It illustrates how Heck and Sandin can point in different directions for prisoners serving life-without-parole terms: the claim was not Heck-barred but still failed for lack of a liberty interest.
The order also shows how forgiving the some-evidence standard is. A lab-confirmed positive test supported the finding even though the sample was flagged as possibly diluted. The ruling is a screening decision on the pleadings, and whether an amended complaint could cure these defects remains open.