Pratt

Pratt v. Rowland

Good Law
770 F. Supp. 1399·91 Daily Journal DAR 13956·1991 WL 155519·1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11490
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 9, 1991C-89-3367 SAWCalifornia3,626 words

Opinion

Opinion

Weigel, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The Court now considers whether or not the retention of plaintiff Elmer “Gerónimo” Pratt in administrative segregation is justified based upon the charges of marijuana trafficking and possession as to which he was found guilty after separate disciplinary hearings. Plaintiff is a maximum security prisoner in the California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi (“Tehachapi”). He seeks a preliminary injunction ordering his release from segregated confinement and his return to the general prison population.

A hearing on this matter was conducted on August 1, 1991. Given the narrow limits on the power of federal courts to review the sufficiency of prison disciplinary proceedings and to override the findings of prison authorities, the Court must conclude that Pratt is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

I. FACTS

On April 1, 1991, Pratt was placed in administrative segregation on the basis of a statement by a confidential informant and fellow inmate that Pratt was engaged in marijuana trafficking. Correctional Officer M. Stainer interviewed the informant and wrote a confidential memorandum, dated April 2, 1991, memorializing the interview (“Confidential…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.