The opinion of the court was delivered by: U. S. District Judge Honorable Edward J. Lodge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court in this prisoner civil rights matter are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 16) and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 18). The parties have adequately presented the facts and legal arguments in their written briefing, and the Court finds that oral argument will not be necessary before resolving these matters. D. Idaho L. Civil R. 7.1(d).
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. This case will be dismissed.
In early July 2008, Plaintiff was an inmate worker at the Correctional Industries (CI) shop at the Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI). According to Plaintiff, at about 2:00 p.m. on July 11, a Friday, another inmate informed Plaintiff and other employees that Defendant Bjourn, their supervisor, had told him that they would not be paid as scheduled. Plaintiff contends that Bjourn told the employees to go home and that he would see them on Monday.
When the employees returned the following Monday, they gathered for a meeting with another CI supervisor. Plaintiff alleges that supervisor explained why the inmates did not get paid and confirmed that he was aware that Bjourn had sent them home the previous Friday.
On July 18, 2008, Plaintiff was issued a Disciplinary Offense Report (DOR) for a "work stoppage," but the DOR was then dismissed. One week later, Plaintiff was given a new DOR and was terminated from his job at CI.
Plaintiff requested that a staff member be assigned to assist him at the subsequent DOR hearing, and he asked for a continuance so that certain witnesses could be presented on his behalf, but those requests were denied by the disciplinary hearing officer, B. Christon. Christon found Plaintiff guilty, but dropped the charge from a Class A to a Class C infraction. Plaintiff was given five days of disciplinary segregation, but that time was suspended, in addition to gym/yard restrictions for thirty days and to twenty hours of extra duty.
Plaintiff appealed the finding, arguing that his procedural rights were violated at the DOR hearing and that he was not guilty of the charge. In particular, he asserted that Bjourn authorized him to leave work early, and he supplied a copy of Bjourn's response to an Offender Concern Form in which Bjourn confirmed that Plaintiff never left work early without checking in his tools and that he "usually notified" Bjourn before he left. His appeal was denied.
In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff contended that (1) he was deprived of his rights to due process and equal protection of the law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in the DOR proceeding, and (2) that Defendants violated the terms of the Balla "Compliance Plans," which are based on injunctive relief adopted by the Court to remedy constitutional violations at ISCI in Balla v. State of Idaho, 81-1165-S-BLW. The Court conducted an initial review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A and allowed Plaintiff to proceed with a due process claim, but the Court dismissed the equal protection claim and the claim based on violations of the Balla compliance plans. (Dkt. 11, p. 4.)
Defendants have now filed a Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court has reviewed these matters and is prepared to issue its ruling.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must accept as true all allegations of material fact, and it will construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). The court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings, but may review material that is properly submitted as part of the complaint without converting the ...