OIG
February 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks
Amarik K. Singh
OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General
INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy
Inspector General
February 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 2025 Prison Oversight
The Office of the Inspector General (the OIG), as part of our statute, maintains an Intake
Processing Unit that receives complaints from the incarcerated population and the public.
Staff in the Intake Processing Unit respond to complaints that the OIG receives through
U.S. Postal mail, phone calls (toll-free hotline), and inquiries through our website, which
can exceed 1,000 monthly claims. Below are 16 complaints that the Intake Processing
Unit reviewed and closed as of February 2025. These cases highlight the OIG’s impact and
efforts to resolve the complainant’s concerns.
Incident Date
January 29, 2025
Case Type
Allegation of Staff Misconduct: Excessive or Unnecessary Use of Force
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region II (Fresno Area)
OIG Case Number
25-0096824-PI
Complaint Summary
On January 29, 2025, the OIG received a web complaint from a private citizen alleging six
officers beat an incarcerated person for 10 minutes in his cell on January 29, 2025. The private
citizen alleged the incarcerated person’s disability and recent surgery did not allow him to move
as quickly as the officers wanted, and the officers allegedly deployed pepper spray. The officers’
actions allegedly caused severe pain and injuries to the incarcerated person’s lungs and back
muscles.
OIG Actions
The OIG’s review of departmental records verified a use-of-force incident involving the
incarcerated person occurred on the date in question. The OIG also found the incarcerated
person notified medical staff that custody staff stomped on his back. The physician informed
custody staff of the potential allegation of unnecessary or excessive use of force; however,
departmental staff did not process this allegation or conduct a video-recorded interview. Per
departmental policy, a custody supervisor shall conduct a video-recorded interview with the
incarcerated person when the incarcerated person makes an allegation of unnecessary or
excessive use of force. Departmental policy also requires the department to suspend its use-of-
force review and refer the allegation to its Office of Internal Affairs’ Centralized Screening Team
(CST) for review and processing when an incarcerated person alleges excessive or unnecessary
use of force. As of February 4, 2025, the incarcerated person had not submitted a grievance or
an allegation of excessive or unnecessary use of force at the prison.
On February 4, 2025, the OIG notified the warden of the allegation of unnecessary or excessive
use of force and potential staff misconduct. After the OIG’s contact, custody staff attempted to
conduct a video-recorded interview with the incarcerated person; however, the incarcerated
person refused to participate. On February 5, 2025, the prison suspended its use-of-force
review process for this incident. However, the warden did not forward this allegation of staff
misconduct to the Centralized Screening Team (CST) for review of the potential staff misconduct
identified in the OIG’s notification.
Page 1 of 13
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827
5
Telephone: (916) 288-4233
5
www.oig.ca.gov
Amarik K. Singh
OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General
INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy
Inspector General
February 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 2025 Prison Oversight
Subsequently, on February 11, 2025, the Office of Grievances (OOG) received a grievance from
the incarcerated person regarding the alleged staff misconduct on January 29, 2025, which
OOG referred to CST.
Disposition
On February 14, 2025, CST referred the allegation of staff misconduct to the Office of Internal
Affairs for an investigation.
Incident Date
January 23, 2025
Case Type
Allegation of Staff Misconduct: Excessive or Unnecessary Use of Force
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region II (Fresno Area)
OIG Case Number
25-00096663-PI
Complaint Summary
On January 23, 2025, the OIG received a voicemail complaint from an incarcerated person
(complainant) alleging he had witnessed an unknown officer apply excessive or unnecessary
use of force against a second incarcerated person. The complainant stated he watched the
second incarcerated person get “choked out” for longer than seven minutes. The complainant
provided our office with the prison name, the facility identifier, and the building location where
the alleged incident occurred.
OIG Actions
On January 24, 2025, the OIG reviewed departmental records and located a use-of-force
incident that matched the information the complainant had provided. The OIG determined the
second incarcerated person had made an allegation of excessive or unnecessary use of force,
as documented by medical staff on a medical report of injury, which stated, “Officers banged
my head & dragged me. . . .” However, departmental staff did not conduct a video-recorded
interview with the second incarcerated person regarding this allegation.
As of February 6, 2025, the incarcerated person had not submitted a grievance alleging
excessive or unnecessary use of force had occurred at the prison. Furthermore, the OIG was
unable to locate any documentation that an interview was ever conducted regarding this
allegation.
Therefore, on February 6, 2025, the OIG notified the warden about the allegation of excessive
or unnecessary use of force. The OIG requested this allegation be considered for review and
processing as an allegation of staff misconduct by the Centralized Screening Team (CST).
Disposition
On February 6, 2025, the warden referred the allegation of staff misconduct to CST. On
February 11, 2025, custody staff conducted a video-recorded interview with the second
incarcerated person who had made an allegation of excessive or unnecessary use of force. In
addition, on February 11, 2025, CST referred the allegation of staff misconduct to the Office of
Internal Affairs for an investigation.
Page 2 of 13
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov
Amarik K. Singh
OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General
INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy
Inspector General
February 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 2025 Prison Oversight
Incident Date
November 19, 2024
OIG Case Number
25-0096092-PI
Case Type
Release Date Calculation; Rules Violation Report
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region I (Sacramento Area)
Complaint Summary
On January 2, 2025, the OIG received a voicemail complaint from a private citizen (complainant)
on behalf of an incarcerated person. The complainant alleged in December 2024, the prison
issued the incarcerated person a rules violation report and inappropriately added time to his
sentence prior to conducting a hearing. The complainant stated the hearing was overdue, and
the incarcerated person should be immediately released because of the due process violation by
prison staff.
OIG Actions
The OIG reviewed departmental records and found on December 2, 2024; a rules
violation report was issued to the incarcerated person for an incident that occurred on
November 19, 2024. On December 10, 2024, a 150-day credit loss was applied to the
incarcerated person’s release date pending the rules violation report’s hearing results. Based
on this loss, prison staff changed the incarcerated person’s earliest possible release date from
December 25, 2024, to March 10, 2025. Departmental regulations require a rules violation
report hearing to be held within 30 days of issuance. The hearing should have been held by
January 1, 2025, but the OIG found the hearing was still pending past the due date.
On January 7 and 9, 2025, the OIG elevated the issue of the delayed rules violation report to a
lieutenant, who confirmed the hearing was overdue and advised the OIG he would notify the
facility to obtain an updated status.
Disposition
On January 9, 2025, the rules violation report hearing was held, but no credit loss was imposed
on the incarcerated person because of the due process violation (i.e., the hearing was not held
within 30 days of issuance). On January 10, 2025, the prison restored the incarcerated person’s
credit loss and changed his release date from March 10, 2025, to December 25, 2024. That
date having passed, the incarcerated person was discharged from prison as quickly as possible
on January 13, 2025, the first business day available, and was released to the jurisdiction of a
county agency for post release community supervision.
Incident Date
November 29, 2024
OIG Case Number
24-0095544-PI
Case Type
Allegation of Staff Misconduct: Integrity
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region I (Sacramento Area)
Page 3 of 13
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov
Amarik K. Singh
OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General
INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy
Inspector General
February 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 2025 Prison Oversight
Complaint Summary
On December 6, 2024, the OIG received a mail complaint from an incarcerated person
(complainant) who alleged on November 29, 2024, he had observed an officer who walked
away from an assault during which three incarcerated people attacked a fourth incarcerated
person (alleged victim) in the dayroom. The complainant stated there was video footage of
the incident, and he provided identifying information of the involved incarcerated people,
along with the location of the incident and the time it had occurred. The complainant also
alleged the officer who walked away from the incident subsequently congratulated one of the
three assailants.
OIG Actions
The OIG used the information provided by the complainant to search departmental records and
identify the alleged victim and the three assailants. However, we could not locate any records
that documented the alleged incident’s occurrence on or around November 29, 2024.
On December 16, 2024, based on the details provided by the complainant and the nature of
the allegation, the OIG notified the warden of the alleged victim’s potential safety concern.
Furthermore, the OIG shared the allegation of potential staff misconduct against the officer for
having endangered incarcerated people by walking away from an ongoing attack.
Disposition
On December 17, 2024, the warden referred the allegation of staff misconduct to the
Centralized Screening Team (CST). On December 23, 2024, CST referred the allegation of staff
misconduct by the officer to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation.
Incident Date
December 3, 2024
OIG Case Number
24-0095442-PI
Case Type
Allegation of Staff Misconduct: Excessive or Unnecessary Use of Force
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region II (Fresno Area)
Complaint Summary
On December 3, 2024, the OIG received two voicemail complaints from an incarcerated person
(complainant) who requested anonymity. The complainant reported that a second incarcerated
person experiencing mental health symptoms was a victim of excessive or unnecessary use
of force. The complainant had not visually witnessed the use of force, but heard the alleged
beating of the victim and later saw the incarcerated person with facial injuries. The complainant
provided specific details, including the location of the incident and the time it had occurred.
OIG Actions
The OIG reviewed departmental records and located the incident report associated with the
use-of-force incident. We located records with the second incarcerated person’s statement that
multiple officers had kicked him in the face. Departmental staff had properly documented the
allegation of excessive or unnecessary use of force in the incident report on December 3, 2024,
and a sergeant had interviewed the second incarcerated person on that same day. On
December 12, 2024, prison staff paused the use-of-force review process to allow for an Office
of Internal Affairs investigation to be completed before conducting their review.
Page 4 of 13
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov
Amarik K. Singh
OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General
INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy
Inspector General
February 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 2025 Prison Oversight
When an incarcerated person alleges excessive or unnecessary use of force, departmental
policy requires institutional staff to forward the allegation of staff misconduct to the Centralized
Screening Team (CST). However, as of December 27, 2024, the OIG could not locate any record
that this allegation had been submitted to CST for review.
On January 3, 2025, the OIG notified the hiring authority that the allegation of staff misconduct
regarding excessive or unnecessary use of force had not been submitted to CST for review.
Disposition
On January 3, 2025, following the OIG’s notification, the hiring authority suspended the
use-of-force review process and forwarded the allegation of staff misconduct to CST. On
January 8, 2025, CST referred the allegation of excessive or unnecessary use of force to the
Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation.
Incident Date
October 16, 2023
OIG Case Number
24-0095676-PI
Case Type
Allegation of Staff Misconduct: Excessive or Unnecessary Use of Force
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region I (Sacramento Area)
Complaint Summary
Between December 13 and 29, 2024, the OIG received three voicemails from a private citizen
(complainant) who was concerned about the safety of an incarcerated person. The complainant
stated officers allegedly tried to kill the incarcerated person during a use-of-force incident on or
around October 17, 2023. The incarcerated person had allegedly suffered a fractured finger and
a concussion during the incident.
OIG Actions
The OIG reviewed departmental records and determined the use-of-force incident took place on
October 16, 2023. Use-of-force records identified the incarcerated person made an allegation of
excessive or unnecessary use of force during the medical examination following the incident. On
October 17, 2023, the department conducted a video-recorded interview with the incarcerated
person regarding this allegation. On October 25, 2023, prison staff paused the use-of-force
review process to allow for an Office of Internal Affairs investigation to be completed before
conducting their review.
When an incarcerated person alleges excessive or unnecessary use of force, departmental
policy requires institutional staff to forward the allegation of staff misconduct to the Centralized
Screening Team (CST). However, as of December 13, 2024, the OIG could not locate any record
that this allegation had been submitted for an OIA investigation.
On December 16, 2024, the OIG contacted the prison’s use-of-force coordinator and requested
the status of the allegation. On January 22, 2025, after multiple unsuccessful attempts to obtain
an answer, the OIG contacted the warden about this concern.
Disposition
On January 28, 2025, the chief deputy warden notified the OIG that the captain responsible
for handling this allegation had retired. On January 29, 2025, the hiring authority submitted
Page 5 of 13
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov
Amarik K. Singh
OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General
INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy
Inspector General
February 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 2025 Prison Oversight
the allegation to the Centralized Screening Team (CST). On February 4, 2025, CST referred
the allegation of excessive or unnecessary use of force to the Office of Internal Affairs for
an investigation.
Incident Date
November 2024
OIG Case Number
24-0095116-PI
Case Type
Allegation of Staff Misconduct: Code of Silence
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region IV (Rancho Cucamonga Area)
Complaint Summary
On November 18, 2024, the OIG received a complaint from an anonymous private citizen
(complainant) who alleged a teacher had violated policies against overfamiliarity when the
teacher inappropriately purchased books on unknown dates for an incarcerated person at the
prison. Furthermore, the complainant alleged that although the teacher had received corrective
action, the hiring authority and a former Investigative Services Unit officer had compromised
the investigation.
OIG Actions
The OIG reviewed the allegations and accessed departmental records to review the disciplinary
and investigative history of the involved parties. We did not locate any records indicating
that either an inquiry or an investigation into the alleged misconduct had occurred. On
November 25, 2024, the OIG elevated the allegations of staff misconduct to the Office of
Internal Affairs.
Disposition
On December 3, 2025, the Office of Internal Affairs notified the OIG that it had reviewed
the allegations of staff misconduct and referred them to the appropriate hiring authority.
On December 4, 2025, the hiring authority referred the allegation against the officer to the
Centralized Screening Team (CST). On January 2, 2025, CST referred the allegation to the Office
of Internal Affairs for investigation as a code of silence violation. Furthermore, CST noted the
teacher had previously received corrective action related to this incident.
Incident Date
January 17, 2025
OIG Case Number
25-0096653-PI
Case Type
Safety Concern
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region II (Fresno Area)
Complaint Summary
Between January 24 and 28, 2025, the OIG received two voicemails from a private citizen
(complainant) who alleged potential safety concerns on behalf of an incarcerated person. The
Page 6 of 13
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov
Amarik K. Singh
OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General
INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy
Inspector General
February 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 2025 Prison Oversight
complainant alleged the incarcerated person incurred a debt to other incarcerated people, and
his life would be in danger should he be released from the restricted housing unit (RHU) and
sent back to his prior housing location.
OIG Actions
The OIG reviewed departmental records and determined the incarcerated person was placed
in the RHU on January 17, 2025, based on self-expressed safety concerns. The OIG reviewed
prison records and identified a confidential memorandum dated January 17, 2025, in which the
sergeant concluded the incarcerated person was unreliable, and insufficient evidence existed to
sustain his safety concerns.
On January 23, 2025, an institutional classification committee (ICC) recommended the
incarcerated person be transferred to another institution. However, the incarcerated person was
instead scheduled to be released back to the facility where he had previously reported safety
concerns until he was to be transferred.
On January 24, 2025, the OIG notified the hiring authority of the complainant’s possible safety
concerns. The OIG also requested the prison reevaluate the incarcerated person’s safety
concerns to determine whether an offender separation alert1 with the other incarcerated people
was warranted.
Disposition
On January 28, 2025, following the OIG’s notification to the hiring authority, the department
reevaluated and substantiated safety concerns with four incarcerated people in the facility
where the at risk incarcerated person was previously housed. Staff subsequently processed
offender separation alerts for the four incarcerated people involved.
Incident Date
December 6, 2024
OIG Case Number
24-0095726-PI
Case Type
Contraband
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region I (Sacramento Area)
Complaint Summary
On December 16, 2024, the OIG received a web complaint from a private citizen (complainant)
who alleged an incarcerated person was in possession of a mobile phone and contacted the
complainant via social media on December 6, 2024.
OIG Actions
The OIG reviewed departmental records and determined where the incarcerated person
was housed. On December 17, 2024, the OIG notified the warden of the alleged contraband
mobile phone.
1. A separation alert is a record placed in an incarcerated person’s central file that identifies an enemy concern. These
alerts typically restrict an incarcerated person from being housed at the same prison (or facility) as any of the individuals
identified in the record.
Page 7 of 13
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov
Amarik K. Singh
OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General
INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy
Inspector General
February 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 2025 Prison Oversight
Disposition
On December 18, 2024, custody staff searched the incarcerated person’s cell, then conducted
a clothed body search and discovered a mobile phone. The incarcerated person received a rules
violation report for possession of the mobile phone. On January 8, 2025, the incarcerated person
pleaded guilty, and the department imposed a 61-day loss of credits.
Incident Date
December 24, 2024
OIG Case Number
24-0095977-PI
Case Type
Allegation of Staff Misconduct: Excessive or Unnecessary Use of Force
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region III (Bakersfield Area)
Complaint Summary
On December 26, 2024, the OIG received a web complaint from a private citizen (complainant)
who alleged officers assaulted an incarcerated person on December 24, 2024. The complainant
alleged the incarcerated person had filed a grievance about the incident.
OIG Actions
The OIG reviewed departmental records and identified a use-of-force incident involving the
incarcerated person that had occurred on December 24, 2024. On December 25, 2024, the
incarcerated person reported excessive or unnecessary use of force to a sergeant and on
December 26, 2024, a lieutenant interviewed the incarcerated person who provided additional
information about the allegation.
When an incarcerated person alleges excessive or unnecessary use of force, departmental
policy requires institutional staff to forward the allegation of staff misconduct to the Centralized
Screening Team (CST). However, as of February 13, 2025, the OIG could not locate any records
that the allegation had been submitted to CST for review or that the incarcerated person had
submitted a grievance regarding the incident.
On February 14, 2025, the OIG notified the hiring authority that the allegation of staff
misconduct regarding excessive or unnecessary use of force had not been submitted to CST for
review.
Disposition
On February 14, 2025, the hiring authority submitted the allegation to CST. On
February 18, 2025, CST referred the allegation of excessive or unnecessary use of force to
the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation.
Incident Date
August 12, 2024
OIG Case Number
24-0095592-PI
Case Type
Grievance and Appeal Process
Page 8 of 13
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov
Amarik K. Singh
OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General
INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy
Inspector General
February 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 2025 Prison Oversight
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region IV (Rancho Cucamonga Area)
Complaint Summary
On December 9, 2024, the OIG received a mail complaint from an incarcerated person who
alleged the Office of Grievances (OOG) failed to respond timely to his law library grievance and
the Office of Appeals (OOA) failed to respond timely to an appeal about his trust account.
OIG Actions
The OIG reviewed departmental records and confirmed that on August 12, 2024, the
incarcerated person had filed a grievance with OOG about law library access. OOG’s response
to the incarcerated person was due on October 12, 2024. The OIG found OOG had reviewed the
grievance and drafted a response, but had not sent a response to the incarcerated person.
On August 21, 2024, OOA had logged the incarcerated person’s appeal about his trust account
issues. OOA’s response was due on October 21, 2024, but OOA had not responded to the
incarcerated person.
On December 20, 2024, the OIG contacted both OOG and OOA, and advised those offices of
their lack of a response to the incarcerated person.
Disposition
On December 20, 2024, OOG sent a grievance decision letter to the incarcerated person. On
January 7, 2025, OOA sent an appeal response letter to the incarcerated person. OOA notified
the OIG that a technical issue had prevented timely processing of the appeal.
Incident Date
February 3, 2025
OIG Case Number
25-0096918-PI
Case Type
Safety Concern
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region III (Bakersfield Area)
Complaint Summary
On February 3, 2025, the OIG received a voicemail complaint from an anonymous incarcerated
person (complainant) alleging three incarcerated people (subjects) were having sexual
relationships, fighting, and doing drugs together. The complainant stated he and other
incarcerated people were tired of hearing the subjects’ sexual activities. The complainant
threatened that if nothing were done to stop the subjects’ behavior, then the complainant and
others in the building would stop it “one way or the other.”
OIG Actions
The OIG reviewed departmental records and confirmed the subjects were housed in the same
building, with two incarcerated people celled together and the third person in an adjacent cell.
On February 4, 2025, the OIG referred these safety concerns to the warden and requested an
update once the inquiry was complete.
On February 5, 2025, an investigative services unit (ISU) lieutenant informed the OIG that ISU
interviewed all three subjects and other incarcerated people in the same building. The three
Page 9 of 13
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov
Amarik K. Singh
OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General
INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy
Inspector General
February 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 2025 Prison Oversight
subjects informed staff they did not have any safety concerns and could safely live together in
the same building. Five other incarcerated people celled nearby did not provide any concerns
to the ISU lieutenant. The lieutenant informed the OIG that Prison Rape Elimination Act
(PREA) protocols were not initiated because the complaint did not meet PREA criteria. The
OIG informed the ISU lieutenant of the safety concerns for the incarcerated population and
asked whether the three subjects would be moved. Initially, the ISU lieutenant stated no safety
concerns were identified; therefore, the subjects could remain housed at the same facility.
Disposition
On February 5, 2025, after the OIG’s contact with the ISU lieutenant, the OIG found that each
of the three subjects were moved from their current location to different buildings within the
same prison.
Incident Date
December 15, 2023
OIG Case Number
25-0097110-PI
Case Type
Safety Concern
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region IV (Rancho Cucamonga Area)
Complaint Summary
On February 10, 2025, the OIG received a mail complaint from an incarcerated person
(complainant) who alleged he was being transferred to a prison where he had been previously
assaulted by officers and other incarcerated people. The complainant also alleged having been
assaulted by an officer at this prison on December 15, 2023. The complainant feared for his
safety and stated he would hang himself if he were transferred back to that prison.
OIG Actions
The OIG reviewed departmental records and found that on December 15, 2023, the
complainant received a rules violation report for assault on a peace officer. The OIG did not
identify any enemy or any staff separation alerts for the complainant at this prison.
On February 6, 2025, the incarcerated person was transferred to the prison in question.
On February 10, 2025, the OIG notified the warden regarding possible safety concerns for
the complainant.
Disposition
On February 10, 2025, a lieutenant interviewed the complainant within one hour of the OIG’s
notification. The complainant stated he no longer had safety concerns and did not wish to
hurt himself. The complainant stated he wanted to continue living at the prison. The OIG
is highlighting this complaint in a positive manner to commend the institution for its quick
response to our notification.
Page 10 of 13
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov
Amarik K. Singh
OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General
INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy
Inspector General
February 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 2025 Prison Oversight
Incident Date
January 30, 2025
OIG Case Number
25-0096879-PI
Case Type
Centralized Screening Team (CST): Screening Decision
Mission
Office of Internal Affairs’ Centralized Screening Team (CST)
Complaint Summary
On February 2, 2025, the OIG received a voicemail message from a transgender incarcerated
person (complainant) who alleged on January 30, 2025, two officers slammed her to the
ground, and one of the two officers sexually assaulted her. The complainant stated the first
officer landed on her head, and the second officer landed on her buttocks. The complainant
alleged that while she was in restraints, the second officer was “grunting” and “humping” her
buttocks, and she felt the second officer have an erection.
OIG Actions
The OIG reviewed departmental records and located a use-of-force incident involving the
complainant, which occurred on January 30, 2025. On January 31, 2025, the complainant
submitted a grievance to the Office of Grievances (OOG) alleging she was sexually assaulted by
the second officer. The Centralized Screening Team (CST) referred this allegation to the Office of
Internal Affairs for an investigation of staff sexual misconduct.
The OIG identified the complainant also alleged in the grievance that the second officer had
used excessive or unnecessary force.
On February 7, 2025, the OIG notified CST of the excessive or unnecessary force allegation
and requested CST consider adding this second claim to the open Office of Internal Affairs’
investigation.
Disposition
On February 10, 2025, CST referred the complainant’s excessive or unnecessary force allegation
to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Incident Date
November 5, 2024
OIG Case Number
24-0095037-PI
Case Type
Allegations of Staff Misconduct: Retaliation; Centralized Screening Team: Screening Decision
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region IV (Rancho Cucamonga Area); and Office of Internal
Affairs’ Centralized Screening Team
Complaint Summary
The OIG received 10 voicemail complaints from four members of a prison’s Inmate Advisory
Council (IAC). The complainants alleged that shortly after they met with OIG staff, multiple
Page 11 of 13
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov
Amarik K. Singh
OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General
INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy
Inspector General
February 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 2025 Prison Oversight
departmental staff had retaliated against and harassed them and other IAC members. The
complainants alleged staff had intimidated and targeted them with unwarranted searches, false
rules violation reports, and housing moves, due to the IAC members raising concerns with the
OIG and advocating for the incarcerated population.
OIG Actions
Before receiving the complaints, OIG staff had recently traveled to the prison to meet with the
IAC as part of the OIG’s efforts to stay informed about the current issues incarcerated people
are facing at each prison.
After the meeting, the OIG elevated allegations discovered during the IAC visit to an associate
director. The IAC representatives alleged that custody staff were involved in gang activity
and had intimidated and targeted IAC representatives, officers had inappropriately looked up
grievances, and staff had discouraged the incarcerated population from filing grievances. The
IAC representatives also alleged a chief deputy warden had stated, “You guys have got to stop
with the 602s [grievance form]. We receive hundreds of 602s, and we can’t get anything done.
Let the population [incarcerated people] know!”
Less than two weeks later, the associate director advised the OIG that he had reviewed
the allegations and discussed them with the warden. The associate director stated the IAC
representatives misconstrued the chief deputy warden’s comments. The associate director did
not address the additional allegations of staff misconduct and stated the case would not be
referred to the Centralized Screening Team (CST) for review.
After reviewing the associate director’s response, the OIG elevated concerns to both the director
of the Division of Adult Institutions (DAI) and to the Office of Internal Affairs. The concerns
included the allegations discovered during the IAC visit, the associate director’s insufficient
response to our concerns, and new allegations of retaliation and harassment of the IAC
representatives.2
As a result of the OIG’s elevation, the DAI director instructed departmental staff to refer all
allegations of staff misconduct to CST. CST subsequently determined the allegations were not
on the Allegation Decision Index and referred them back to the prison for a local inquiry, rather
than to an Office of Internal Affairs investigator.3 The OIG determined CST had misclassified the
allegation and elevated concerns about the misclassified allegations of staff misconduct to CST.
Disposition
CST ultimately referred some of the allegations of staff misconduct to the Office of Internal
Affairs for an investigation, which the OIG’s Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit is currently
monitoring. However, the department closed the allegation against the chief deputy warden,
without having conducted either an inquiry or an investigation, even though the chief deputy
warden had allegedly instructed the IAC representatives to direct the incarcerated population to
stop filing grievances.
2. On November 14, 2024, four IAC representatives were issued rules violation reports (RVR) for “unlawful influence”
or “theft of state property.” On a subsequent unknown date, the department dismissed each RVR. Since the RVRs were
removed from the department’s computer system, the actual date of dismissal for each representative is unknown.
3. The department uses the Allegation Decision Index to determine to which unit within the department a complaint
should be referred for processing.
Page 12 of 13
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov
Amarik K. Singh
OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General
INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy
Inspector General
February 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 2025 Prison Oversight
Incident Date
November 27, 2024
OIG Case Number
24-0095364-PI
Case Type
Allegation of Staff Misconduct: Code of Silence; Contraband; Safety Concern
Mission
Division of Adult Institutions: Region I (Sacramento Area)
Complaint Summary
On November 27, 2024, the OIG received a mail complaint from an anonymous complainant
who alleged a first, a second, and a third incarcerated person possessed and sold alcohol,
narcotics, and canteen items, and had threatened to harm a fourth incarcerated person. The
complainant stated he reported the above issues to custody staff. Furthermore, the complainant
alleged an unnamed housing unit officer failed to confiscate contraband belonging to the first
incarcerated person. Instead, the officer allegedly warned the first incarcerated person that
someone had reported the first incarcerated person’s misconduct.
OIG Actions
The OIG reviewed departmental records and confirmed the involved incarcerated people were
housed in the same building and that the department was not aware of the allegations. On
December 11, 2024, the OIG notified the warden of the alleged contraband, potential safety
concern, and misconduct by an unnamed officer.
Disposition
On December 12, 2024, the investigative services unit searched the first and the second
incarcerated peoples’ cell and discovered 35 bindles of tobacco, as well as one bindle of
methamphetamine. The first incarcerated person received a rules violation report for possession
of dangerous contraband and the second incarcerated person received a rules violation report
for possession of a controlled substance.
Page 13 of 13
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov