Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Andrew Samuel Guillory, proceeding without counsel, sued the HOPE Program over his required participation in sex offender group therapy while on parole. He alleged that California parole officials deliberately falsified his STATIC-99R risk assessment and sent it to Hope, producing an inflated risk score and a fraudulent justification for treatment. According to his Second Amended Complaint, the assessment included inaccurate convictions and charges, treated his juvenile adjudication as an adult record, and contained incorrect personal information. He further alleged that Hope refused to correct the report after he raised the inaccuracies and that he was compelled to discuss sealed juvenile matters in group therapy.
The operative pleadings asserted substantive due process, federal statutory and constitutional privacy, and California libel claims. A Supplemental Complaint added a due process theory concerning Hope clinician Amy Groven’s November 22, 2025 LS/MCI assessment, which Guillory said used the same fabricated data. Hope moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) on July 31, 2026. Discovery closed on August 3, the parties completed briefing, and the court heard argument on September 9. Guillory later sought leave to file a Second Supplemental Complaint containing three new claims.
The Court’s Holding
Judge William H. Orrick granted Hope’s motion without leave to amend and entered judgment for Hope. On substantive due process, the court applied the requirement that a section 1983 fabrication plaintiff show both deliberate fabrication by the defendant and a resulting deprivation of liberty. Guillory’s pleadings attributed creation of the STATIC-99R to prison or parole officials, not Hope. His argument that Hope independently created later assessments did not rescue the claim: the SAC did not present that theory, and the Supplemental Complaint alleged only that Hope populated its assessment with the same data. The court found no plausible nonconclusory allegation that Hope knew the information was false or deliberately intended to use fabricated information.
The privacy claim failed because 18 U.S.C. § 5038 concerns federal juvenile proceedings and does not give Guillory a private right of action. He also did not explain how Hope impermissibly disclosed confidential information to a third party, and the court concluded that using CDCR-supplied information to determine eligibility for services was not plausibly alleged to breach his privacy rights. The libel claim failed for lack of a pleaded publication to a third person who could understand the defamatory meaning. Guillory’s theory that reports returned to CDCR and parole personnel was circular because those were the sources that had supplied the STATIC-99R to Hope.
The court denied amendment as futile after at least three prior opportunities to amend or clarify and an earlier warning that Guillory would receive leave to amend one more time. It separately denied the proposed Second Supplemental Complaint under Rule 15(d), citing prejudice from new claims after submission, closed discovery, and harm to judicial economy. The July 20 discovery dispute over document production and an in-person deposition was moot because it would not affect the outcome. The court declined to address Hope’s administrative-exhaustion argument because Hope first raised it in reply.
Key Takeaways
- A due process fabrication claim requires plausible allegations against the particular defendant, and allegations that state officials created the report did not establish fabrication by Hope.
- Using disputed information in later assessments was insufficient without plausible factual allegations that Hope knew the information was false and deliberately intended to use fabricated evidence.
- Section 5038 did not supply Guillory with a private right of action, and his pleadings did not identify an actionable third-party disclosure supporting his privacy theory.
- The libel claim lacked a sufficient publication allegation because returning reports to the CDCR personnel who supplied the underlying information did not satisfy the pleaded third-party communication requirement.
- The court entered judgment without further amendment, denied the late supplemental pleading, treated the identified discovery dispute as moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Rule 12(c)’s plausibility framework separately to each theory rather than treating allegations of inaccurate records as enough to establish every claimed violation. It distinguishes deliberate fabrication from downstream use of information and publication from the alleged circulation of reports among the agencies involved in supplying the underlying data.
The ruling finally resolves Guillory’s claims against Hope in this action, but it does not adjudicate the merits of the three new claims in his proposed Second Supplemental Complaint. It also leaves Hope’s reply-only administrative-exhaustion argument unaddressed and resolves the specified discovery dispute through mootness rather than a substantive discovery ruling.