Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries, July – September 2025

Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight From July 1, 2025, through September 30, 2025, The OIG’s Assessment of the OIG’s Force Investigation Review Team 24 Investigations for July Through September 2025 completed its review of 24 California Department Number of of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR or the Rating Investigations department) closed use-of-force investigation Adequate 4 cases. The OIG evaluated the department’s overall performance in the 24 closed use-of-force Improvement Needed 5 investigations as follows: Inadequate 15 For each monitored investigation, the OIG Totals 24 evaluated the performance of the Office of Source: Analysis prepared by staff of the Office of the Inspector General. Internal Affairs’ investigators to determine whether they conducted thorough and timely investigations. The OIG also evaluated whether hiring authorities made reasonable decisions about those completed investigations. The OIG assessed the Office of Internal Affairs and hiring authorities within the department as follows: The OIG’s Assessment of CDCR’s Performance of 24 Investigations for July Through September 2025 Performance Rating Office of Internal Hiring Affairs Authority Adequate 7 5 Improvement Needed 3 6 Inadequate 14 13 Totals 24 24 Source: Analysis prepared by staff of the Office of the Inspector General. Below we present summaries of the 24 closed use-of-force investigations the OIG reviewed during this reporting period. Page 1 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Adequate 0006 Incident Summary On June 19, 2024, an officer allegedly grabbed an incarcerated person by the hair, threw her to the ground, and placed his knee on her back. A second officer allegedly struck the incarcerated person on her thighs with a baton repeatedly after she was on the ground. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was adequate. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was adequate. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was adequate. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Improvement Needed 0007 Incident Summary On April 3, 2024, an officer allegedly shoved an incarcerated person and used profanity toward the incarcerated person. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer. Overall Assessment The OIG identified a deficiency in the department’s performance. The hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on September 30, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until November 19, 2024, one month and 20 days thereafter. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was adequate. Page 2 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Hiring Authority Assessment The OIG identified a deficiency in the hiring authority’s performance. The hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on September 30, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until November 19, 2024, one month and 20 days thereafter. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Adequate 0008 Incident Summary On May 9, 2024, an officer allegedly struck an incarcerated person in the back of the incarcerated person’s head with less-lethal rounds. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was adequate. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was adequate. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was adequate. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0009 Incident Summary On November 9, 2023, one sergeant and seven officers allegedly grabbed and pulled an incarcerated person to the ground after he repeatedly told them he would not comply with their orders to return to his cell and submit to handcuffs. The sergeant and seven officers allegedly failed to report their uses of force. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG did not concur with the hiring authority’s determination because the investigation was Page 3 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight insufficient. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The investigator did not conduct interviews with an officer, a supervising cook, and incarcerated people who witnessed the incident. The investigator failed to document in his investigative report the sergeant’s and seven officers’ inconsistent incident reports where they alleged the incarcerated person refused to follow orders to return to his cell and submit to handcuffs. The sergeant and three officers reported the incarcerated person initially refused, but then verbally complied while the rest of the officers reported the incarcerated person shook his head to indicate that he would comply or simply allowed his hands to be guided back by the officers. During the interviews, the investigator failed to ask the sergeant and officers questions about controlled force requirements or document it in his investigative report. The hiring authority found the investigation to be sufficient even though the investigator did not conduct a thorough investigation. The hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. The hiring authority did not timely conduct the investigative and disciplinary findings conference. The hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on February 29, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until April 9, 2024, one month and 11 days thereafter. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator did not conduct a thorough investigation because the investigator did not interview an officer, a supervising cook, and incarcerated people who witnessed the incident. The investigator failed to document in his investigative report the sergeant’s and seven officers’ inconsistent reporting related to the incarcerated person’s refusal to follow orders to return to his housing unit and submit to hand restraints. The sergeant and three officers reported the incarcerated person initially refused, but then verbally complied while the rest of the officers reported the incarcerated person shook his head to indicate that he would comply or simply allowed his hands to be guided back by the officers. The investigator did not document that the sergeant and seven officers violated policy when they failed to initiate controlled force requirements once the incarcerated person stated repeatedly that he would not comply with their orders to return to his housing or submit to hand restraints. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority found the investigation to be sufficient even though the investigator did not thoroughly conduct the investigation. The hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. The hiring authority did not timely conduct the investigative and disciplinary findings conference. The hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on February 29, 2024, but delayed Page 4 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until April 9, 2024, one month and 11 days thereafter. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0010 Incident Summary On February 12, 2024, two officers allegedly deployed pepper spray on two incarcerated people when one of the two incarcerated people uncovered his cell window and appeared with a noose around his neck. Another two officers allegedly failed to request medical assistance when the first incarcerated person expressed suicidal ideations. One of the officers who deployed pepper spray and two psychiatric technicians allegedly laughed when the officers deployed pepper spray on the incarcerated people. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG did not concur with the hiring authority’s determination because the investigation was insufficient. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to interview any of the officers who were subjects of the investigation and the psychiatric technicians who allegedly laughed at the incarcerated people when the officers deployed pepper spray on the incarcerated people. The investigator did not document in his report if he requested additional video evidence from the prison during the time when the incarcerated person allegedly expressed suicidal ideations until the time that staff allegedly laughed at the incarcerated people. The investigator failed to ask the incarcerated person who witnessed the incident if he saw his cellmate with the alleged noose. The incarcerated person who witnessed the incident alleged officers were trying to manipulate them into saying there was a noose. The investigator failed to ask any questions related to this critical piece of evidence. The investigator delayed conducting interviews. The Office of Internal Affairs received the case on February 21, 2024, but the investigator did not conduct the first interview until September 17, 2024, six months and 27 days after receipt of the case. The investigator submitted the final investigation report to the hiring authority on November 20, 2024, two months and three days later. The investigator took eight months and 30 days to complete the case even though he did not interview the officers who were subjects of the investigation or any additional witnesses. The hiring authority found the investigation to be sufficient even though the investigator did not thoroughly conduct the investigation. The hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Page 5 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to interview any of the officers who were subjects of the investigation and the psychiatric technicians who allegedly laughed at the incarcerated people when the officers deployed pepper spray on the incarcerated people. The investigator did not document in his report if he requested additional video evidence from the prison during the time period when the incarcerated person allegedly expressed suicidal ideations until the time that staff allegedly laughed at the incarcerated people. The investigator failed to ask the incarcerated person who witnessed the incident if he saw his cellmate with the alleged noose. The incarcerated person who witnessed the incident alleged officers were trying to manipulate them into saying there was a noose. The investigator failed to ask any questions related to this critical piece of evidence. The investigator delayed conducting interviews. The Office of Internal Affairs received the case on February 21, 2024, but the investigator did not conduct the first interview until September 17, 2024, six months and 27 days after receipt of the case. The investigator then submitted the final report to the hiring authority on November 20, 2024, two months and three days later. The investigator took eight months and 30 days to complete the case even though he did not interview the officers who were subjects of the investigation or any additional witnesses. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority found the investigation to be sufficient even though the investigator did not thoroughly conduct the investigation. The hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0011 Incident Summary On May 5, 2024, an officer allegedly deployed pepper spray on an incarcerated person at a community hospital. The officer then allegedly strangled and hit the incarcerated person on the head with the officer’s gun and threatened to kill the incarcerated person. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG did not concur with the hiring authority’s finding because the investigation was insufficient. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. The hiring authority did not determine a finding for the allegation that the officer threatened to kill the incarcerated person because the investigator and the hiring authority failed to add the allegation to the case. Page 6 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to ask an officer if he saw the officer who was the subject of the investigation strangle the incarcerated person, hit him on the head with a gun, or threaten to kill him. The hiring authority failed to identify that the investigator did not conduct all relevant interviews and did not include in the investigative report all information concerning complete and thorough interviews. In addition, the hiring authority failed to add an allegation to the case that the officer threatened to kill the incarcerated person. The hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on August 30, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until November 19, 2024, two months and 20 days thereafter. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator interviewed the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint and an officer who witnessed the incident but failed to thoroughly address the allegations that the officer who was the subject of the investigation strangled the incarcerated person, hit him on the head with a gun, and then threatened to kill him. In addition, the investigator failed to add to the investigation the allegation that the officer threatened to kill the incarcerated person. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority failed to identify that the investigator did not interview all relevant witnesses and failed to perform complete and thorough interviews. In addition, the hiring authority did not add an allegation to the case that the officer threatened to kill the incarcerated person. The hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on August 30, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until November 19, 2024, two months and 20 days thereafter. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Improvement Needed 0012 Incident Summary On February 17, 2016, an officer allegedly tried to trip an incarcerated person several times while the officer was escorting the incarcerated person to a holding cell. The officer also allegedly punched the handcuffed incarcerated person in the head. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Page 7 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Overall Assessment The OIG identified deficiencies in the department’s performance. An initial hiring authority received the investigation report on July 23, 2024, but retired before conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference. A second hiring authority conducted the investigative and disciplinary findings conference on January 14, 2025, five months and 22 days thereafter. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was adequate. Hiring Authority Assessment The OIG identified deficiencies in the hiring authority’s performance. An initial hiring authority received the investigation report on July 23, 2024, but retired without conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference. A subsequent hiring authority conducted the investigative and disciplinary findings conference on January 14, 2025, five months and 22 days thereafter. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Improvement Needed 0013 Incident Summary On June 13, 2024, while attempting to administer court-ordered medication, three officers entered a cell and allegedly cut an incarcerated person’s right arm with handcuffs. The officers allegedly threw the incarcerated person across the cell and punched her in the face and back. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Overall Assessment The OIG identified a deficiency in the department’s performance. The hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on September 23, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until February 7, 2025, four months and 15 days thereafter. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was adequate. Page 8 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Hiring Authority Assessment The OIG identified a deficiency in the hiring authority’s performance. The hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on September 23, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until February 7, 2025, four months and 15 days thereafter. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0014 Incident Summary On March 3, 2024, an officer deployed pepper spray at an incarcerated person even though the incarcerated person did not pose an imminent threat. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The OIG did not concur with the hiring authority’s determination because the investigation was insufficient. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The Office of Internal Affairs investigator failed to interview an officer who witnessed the incident and did not obtain that officer’s body-worn-camera footage. The investigator also failed to ask the officer who was the subject of the investigation if he and an officer who witnessed the incident collaborated on their written reports. Both officers wrote identical descriptions of the incarcerated person’s demeanor prior to the incident, even though department policy requires officers to write reports independently. Furthermore, body-worn camera- footage shows the officer who witnessed the incident asked the officer who was the subject of the investigation why he deployed pepper spray at the incarcerated person. The investigator did not ask the officer who witnessed the incident why he questioned the other officer about why he deployed pepper spray. In addition, the hiring authority failed to identify that the investigator should have interviewed the officer who witnessed the incident and obtained that officer’s body-worn-camera footage. The hiring authority should have returned the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation because the hiring authority had insufficient evidence to appropriately determine a finding. Finally, the hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on August 6, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until December 2, 2024, three months and 26 days thereafter. Page 9 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to ask the officer who was the subject of the investigation if he and an officer who witnessed the incident collaborated on their use-of-force reports. Both officers wrote identical descriptions of the incarcerated person’s demeanor prior to the incident, even though department policy requires officers to write reports independently. The investigator failed to interview the officer who witnessed the incident and did not obtain that officer’s body-worn-camera footage. The officer who witnessed the incident asked the officer who was the subject of the investigation why he deployed pepper spray at the incarcerated person. The investigator did not obtain information as to why the officer who witnessed the use of force questioned the other officer, to determine if the incarcerated person posed a threat to the officer who deployed pepper spray. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority failed to identify that the investigator should have interviewed the officer who witnessed the use of force and obtained that officer’s body-worn-camera footage. The hiring authority had insufficient evidence to appropriately determine a finding and should have returned the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. In addition, the hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on August 6, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until December 2, 2024, three months and 26 days thereafter. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0015 Incident Summary On July 19, 2023, while several incarcerated people attacked another incarcerated person, three officers allegedly fired nine less-lethal rounds, two of which struck one of the incarcerated people in the back. One of the officers allegedly discharged a less- lethal round at the incarcerated person when he did not pose an imminent threat. The round did not strike the incarcerated person. A fourth officer allegedly threw a chemical agent grenade toward the incarcerated people who were fighting and struck one of the incarcerated people in the head with the grenade. Disposition The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the officer who fired a less- lethal round that did not strike the incarcerated person, issued a letter of instruction, and ordered training. The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the fourth officer. The hiring authority did not determine a finding for the allegation that the officers fired less-lethal rounds and struck the incarcerated person in his back with two of those rounds because the hiring authority failed to add the allegation to the investigation. The hiring authority should have returned the case Page 10 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation because the investigation was insufficient. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to identify and interview two officers who were involved in the incident to determine who was responsible for the two less-lethal rounds that struck the incarcerated person in the back. The investigator also failed to obtain body-worn-camera footage from the two officers. The investigator and the hiring authority failed to include in the investigation the allegation that officers struck the incarcerated person in his back with two less- lethal rounds and failed to identify those officers as subjects of the investigation. The hiring authority found the investigation to be sufficient even though the investigator did not conduct a thorough and complete investigation. The hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to identify and interview two officers who were involved in the incident to determine who was responsible for the two less-lethal rounds that struck the incarcerated person in the back. The investigator failed to identify, obtain, and include as exhibits in the investigation report body-worn-camera footage from the two officers. The investigator also failed to include in the investigation report the allegation that officers struck the incarcerated person in his back with two less-lethal rounds. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority failed to identify the allegation that officers struck the incarcerated person in his back with two less- lethal rounds and failed to identify those officers as subjects of the investigation. The hiring authority found the investigation to be sufficient even though the investigator did not thoroughly conduct the investigation. The hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Adequate 0016 Incident Summary On November 10, 2023, ten officers allegedly grabbed a handcuffed incarcerated person, kicked his feet out from under him, and caused the incarcerated person to land on the ground face first. The officers allegedly falsified their reports when they wrote the incarcerated person was not handcuffed and that he swung at one of the officers. Page 11 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was adequate. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was adequate. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was adequate. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Improvement Needed 0017 Incident Summary On December 23, 2023, as two incarcerated people fought on an exercise yard, an officer allegedly discharged a less-lethal round and struck one of the incarcerated persons in the left eye socket. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Overall Assessment The OIG identified deficiencies in the department’s performance. The investigator failed to advise the incarcerated person whom the investigator interviewed of the need to keep the investigation confidential while the investigation was pending. Although the investigation was initiated as a result of a citizen’s complaint, the investigator failed to document his review of the complaint in the investigative report and failed to attach a copy of the complaint as an exhibit to the report. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The OIG identified deficiencies in the Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance. The investigator failed to advise the incarcerated person who was the victim of the incident of the need to keep the investigation confidential while the investigation was pending. Although the investigation was initiated as a result of a citizen’s complaint, the investigator failed to document his review of the complaint in the investigative report and failed to attach a copy of the complaint as an exhibit to the report. Page 12 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was adequate. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0018 Incident Summary On February 1, 2024, an officer allegedly threatened to strike an incarcerated person with his baton and then punched the incarcerated person in the face while a second officer placed handcuffs on the incarcerated person. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG did not concur with the hiring authority’s findings because the investigation was insufficient. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to interview the incarcerated person involved in the use of force. The investigator also failed to adequately handle new staff misconduct allegations incarcerated people raised during the investigation that were not part of the original allegations. Specifically, two incarcerated people who were witnesses alleged that one officer who was a subject previously assaulted incarcerated people. The investigator should have documented the additional allegations in a report and referred the allegations to the department’s Centralized Screening Team for review. The investigator delayed 126 days after completing his first interview before conducting the next interview. The hiring authority failed to identify that the investigator did not interview the incarcerated person who was involved in the use of force. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case back to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. The hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on September 30, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until December 12, 2024, two months and 12 days thereafter. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator did not interview the incarcerated person involved in the use of force. The investigator also failed to adequately handle new staff misconduct allegations incarcerated people raised during the investigation that were not part of the original allegations. Specifically, two incarcerated people who were witnesses alleged that one officer who was a subject previously assaulted incarcerated people. The investigator should have documented the additional allegations in a report and referred the Page 13 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight allegations to the department’s Centralized Screening Team for review. The investigator delayed 126 days after he completed his first interview to conduct the next scheduled interview. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority failed to identify that the investigator did not interview the incarcerated person involved in the use of force. The hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. The hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on September 30, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until December 12, 2024, two months and 12 days thereafter. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0019 Incident Summary On March 1, 2024, an officer allegedly deployed pepper spray on an incarcerated person who did not present an imminent threat. Three additional officers allegedly threatened to plant a knife in the incarcerated person’s cell and transfer him to another facility within the prison if he failed to provide them information about other incarcerated people. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the first officer used force when the incarcerated person did not present an imminent threat. The hiring authority did not determine a finding on the allegations that three officers threatened the incarcerated person because the investigator and the hiring authority failed to identify and add the appropriate allegations to the investigation. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The investigator did not perform any interviews during the investigation. The investigator also failed to address the incarcerated person’s allegations that three officers in the prison’s investigative services unit allegedly threatened to plant a knife in the incarcerated person’s cell and transfer him to another facility within the prison if he failed to disclose information about other incarcerated people. The hiring authority closed the investigation even though the Office of Internal Affairs did not perform any interviews and did not add all appropriate allegations to the investigation. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs to interview the incarcerated person who filed the complaint and to investigate the allegations that officers threatened the incarcerated person. The hiring authority received the investigation report on September 20, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until October 22, 2024, one month and two days thereafter. Page 14 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator did not perform any interviews. In addition, the investigator failed to address the incarcerated person’s allegations that three officers in the prison’s investigative services unit threatened to plant a knife in his cell and transfer him to another facility within the prison if he failed to provide them information about other incarcerated people. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority closed the investigation even though the Office of Internal Affairs failed to complete a thorough investigation. The hiring authority did not direct the investigator to investigate the incarcerated person’s claims that three officers who worked in the prison’s investigative services unit allegedly threatened to plant a knife in his cell and transfer him to another facility within the prison if he refused to provide information about other incarcerated people. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. The hiring authority received the investigation report on September 20, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until October 22, 2024, one month and two days thereafter. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0020 Incident Summary On March 22, 2024, a sergeant allegedly pulled an incarcerated person back and forth during an escort and then spit his chewing seeds on the incarcerated person. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the sergeant utilized unreasonable force. The hiring authority did not determine a finding on the allegation that the sergeant spit his chewing seeds on the incarcerated person because the investigator did not add the allegation to the investigation even though the Centralized Screening Team referred the allegation to the Office of Internal of Affairs. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. Prior to interviewing the sergeant who was the subject of the investigation, the investigator failed to provide the sergeant with an advisement of rights that accurately documented the allegations. The hiring authority overlooked the allegation that the sergeant spit his chewing seeds on the incarcerated person, thus the hiring authority failed to determine a finding related to the allegation. Page 15 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The OIG identified deficiencies in the Office of Internal Affairs performance. The investigator failed to include the allegation that the sergeant spit chewing seeds on the incarcerated person in the investigation report even though he asked about the allegation during the interviews he conducted. Prior to interviewing the sergeant who was the subject of the investigation, the investigator failed to provide the sergeant with a written advisement of rights that accurately documented the allegations under investigation, instead including allegations related to a different incident. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority failed to determine a finding related to the allegation that the sergeant spit his chewing seeds on the incarcerated person. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0021 Incident Summary On April 24, 2024, a supervising cook allegedly swung his fists in the air wildly and yelled abusive and profane language toward an incarcerated person. On April 27, 2024, the supervising cook allegedly threatened the incarcerated person with a clenched fist as if to punch the incarcerated person. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG did not concur with the hiring authority’s determination because the investigation was insufficient. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to submit a request for video-recorded evidence, causing the recordings to be purged pursuant to the department’s 90-day video retention policy. The investigator also failed to identify and interview all potential witnesses and failed to thoroughly conduct an interview of an officer who was a witness to the incident. The hiring authority made findings even though the Office of Internal Affairs failed to complete a thorough investigation. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Page 16 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to submit a request for video-recorded evidence relevant to the investigation, resulting in the loss of the video evidence. The investigator also failed to identify and interview all potential witnesses and failed to thoroughly conduct an interview of an officer who witnessed the incident. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority closed the investigation even though the Office of Internal Affairs failed to complete a thorough investigation. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0022 Incident Summary On August 11, 2023, an officer allegedly deployed pepper spray on an incarcerated person, striking the incarcerated person’s face and body. Disposition The hiring authority determined no finding for the allegation because the hiring authority had previously made a finding in a duplicate investigation. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The investigator interviewed the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint and failed to audio record the interview. The investigator also failed to identify that the case was a duplicate case and that the hiring authority had already determined a finding in the duplicate case. The investigator should have informed the Centralized Screening Team that the allegations were duplicative, and the duplicate case was pending disciplinary action. The hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on August 22, 2024, but delayed conducting an investigative and disciplinary findings conference until November 19, 2024, two months and 28 days thereafter. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to audio record his interview with the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint and failed to translate or secure a translation into English of the complaint the incarcerated person partially wrote in Spanish. The investigator also failed to identify that the case was a duplicate case and that the hiring authority had already Page 17 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight determined a finding in the duplicate case. Rather than perform the investigation, the investigator should have informed the Centralized Screening Team that the allegations were duplicative, and the duplicate case was pending disciplinary action. Hiring Authority Assessment The OIG identified deficiencies in the hiring authority’s performance. The hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on August 22, 2024, but delayed conducting an investigative and disciplinary findings conference until November 19, 2024, two months and 28 days thereafter. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0023 Incident Summary On March 15, 2024, an officer allegedly kicked and punched an incarcerated person in the face and kicked him in the legs. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that an officer kicked and punched an incarcerated person in the face and kicked him in the legs. The OIG did not concur with the hiring authority’s determination because the investigation was insufficient. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to document in the investigation report and in both the notice of interview and the advisement of rights forms the allegation that the officer allegedly called the incarcerated person a derogatory name. The investigator failed to interview the officer who was the subject of the investigation and failed to interview two officers who witnessed the alleged incidents. The investigator also failed to ask the incarcerated person who submitted the allegation all necessary questions. The investigator also failed to obtain all relevant video-recorded evidence before the recordings were purged pursuant to the department’s 90-day video retention policy. The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to make a finding for the allegation even though the investigator did not thoroughly conduct the investigation. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. The hiring authority also failed to identify and add to the investigation the allegation that the officer who was the subject of the investigation called the incarcerated person a derogatory name. The hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on September 24, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until December 20, 2024, two months and 26 days thereafter. Page 18 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator provided the notice of interview and the advisement of rights forms to a nurse and two sergeants who were witnesses and failed to document on the forms that the officer who was the subject of the investigation had allegedly used derogatory language directed toward the incarcerated person. The investigator failed to interview the officer who was the subject of the investigation and failed to interview two officers who witnessed the alleged incidents. On two separate dates, the investigator interviewed the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint and failed to question him about potential statements he made to prison staff that he was only joking about his claim that an officer kicked and punched him. The investigator also failed to obtain all relevant video-recorded evidence before the recordings were purged pursuant to the department’s 90-day video retention policy. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority received the investigation report from the Office of Internal Affairs on September 24, 2024, but delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until December 20, 2024, two months and 26 days thereafter. The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to make a finding for the allegation even though the investigator did not thoroughly conduct the investigation. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. The hiring authority also failed to identify and add to the investigation the allegation that the officer who was the subject of the investigation called the incarcerated person a derogatory name. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Improvement Needed 0024 Incident Summary On May 18, 2024, an officer allegedly closed a food port on a cell door, jamming the incarcerated person’s finger in the food port. The officer allegedly threatened to enter the incarcerated person’s cell. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the officer who allegedly jammed the incarcerated person’s finger when he closed the food port. The hiring authority determined that the investigation conclusively proved the officer did not threaten the incarcerated person. Page 19 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Overall Assessment The OIG identified deficiencies in the department’s performance. The Office of Internal Affairs investigator did not request, review, and include in the investigation report the video interview a prison sergeant completed, and a medical evaluation form a nurse completed at the prison on May 21, 2024, of the incarcerated person who filed the complaint at the time of the incident. The hiring authority received the completed investigation from the Office of Internal Affairs on September 19, 2024, but delayed the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until January 15, 2025, three months and 27 days thereafter. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The OIG identified deficiencies in the Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance. The investigator did not request, review, and include in the investigation report, the video interview a prison sergeant completed, and a medical evaluation form a nurse completed at the prison on May 21, 2024, of the incarcerated person who filed the complaint at the time of the incident. However, the investigator’s omissions did not negatively impact the sufficiency of the investigation because the investigator obtained and reviewed the body-worn-camera footage that captured the entire incident. Hiring Authority Assessment The OIG identified a deficiency in the hiring authority’s performance. The hiring authority received the completed investigation from the Office of Internal Affairs on September 19, 2024, but delayed the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until January 15, 2025, three months and 27 days thereafter. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0025 Incident Summary On December 18, 2023, a sergeant and two officers allegedly slammed to the ground an incarcerated person who was both handcuffed and in leg restraints. Two additional officers allegedly applied pressure to the handcuffs and leg restraints, causing cuts to the incarcerated person’s wrists and ankles. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG did not concur with the hiring authority’s determination because the investigation was insufficient. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Page 20 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to document his attempts to identify a third officer who allegedly slammed the incarcerated person to the ground as a subject of the investigation even though the officer documented that he used force during the incident. The hiring authority found the investigation to be sufficient even though the investigator did not thoroughly conduct the investigation. The hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. In addition, the hiring authority received the completed investigation from the Office of Internal Affairs on July 23, 2024, but delayed the investigative and disciplinary finding conference until October 28, 2024, three months and five days thereafter. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to document his attempts to identify a third officer who allegedly slammed the incarcerated person to the ground as a subject of the investigation even though the officer documented that he used force during the incident. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority failed to identify, as a subject of the investigation, an officer who reported that he used force on the incarcerated person. The hiring authority found the investigation to be sufficient even though the investigator did not thoroughly conduct the investigation. The hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. In addition, the hiring authority received the completed investigation from the Office of Internal Affairs on July 23, 2024, but delayed the investigative and disciplinary finding conference until October 28, 2024, three months and five days thereafter. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0026 Incident Summary On August 8, 2023, an officer allegedly unholstered his pepper spray, ordered the incarcerated person to get down on the ground, and shoved him against a wall. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The hiring authority found the investigation to be sufficient even though the investigator did not thoroughly conduct the investigation. The hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Page 21 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The investigator and hiring authority failed to identify incarcerated people who may have witnessed the incident. In addition, the investigator failed to timely request video-recorded evidence before the recordings were purged pursuant to the department’s 90-day video retention policy. The hiring authority found the investigation to be sufficient even though the investigator did not thoroughly conduct the investigation. The hiring authority received the completed investigation from the Office of Internal Affairs on December 15, 2023, but delayed the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until April 10, 2024, three months and 26 days thereafter. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs Investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to review the dental ducat listing to determine whether any incarcerated people were in the area at the same time as the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint and may have witnessed the incident. In addition, the investigator failed to timely request video-recorded evidence before the recordings were purged pursuant to the department’s 90-day video retention policy. The investigator did not request the video recordings until three months and 29 days after the case was assigned. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority found the investigation to be sufficient even though the investigator did not thoroughly conduct the investigation. The hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. The hiring authority received the completed investigation from the Office of Internal Affairs on December 15, 2023, but delayed the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until April 10, 2024, three months and 26 days thereafter. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Adequate 0027 Incident Summary On January 26, 2023, three officers allegedly dragged an incarcerated person from a prison office to a dayroom and punched and kicked him as he was on the floor in handcuffs. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Page 22 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Overall Assessment The department’s performance was adequate. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was adequate. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was adequate. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0028 Incident Summary On May 29, 2021, two sergeants allegedly punched an incarcerated person multiple times in the face while releasing him from a cell. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The Office of Internal Affairs investigator failed to identify and refer unrelated allegations of serious injuries to the hiring authority for review and further disposition. In addition, the hiring authority did not conduct the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until October 23, 2024, six months and four days after policy required. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to obtain eight photographs of the incarcerated person’s injuries that the prison’s Investigative Services Unit listed as evidence in the use-of-force incident report. The investigator included as an exhibit in the investigation report a medical evaluation form unrelated to the incarcerated person’s complaint. The medical evaluation form showed current serious injuries, whereas the allegations being investigated occurred approximately two years before the nurse completed the form. Instead of the investigator including the form as an exhibit in the investigation report, he should have referred the unrelated, but serious allegation to the hiring authority for review and further disposition. Page 23 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in November 2025 Prison Oversight Hiring Authority Assessment The OIG identified a deficiency in the hiring authority’s performance. The hiring authority did not conduct the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until October 23, 2024, six months and four days after policy required. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0029 Incident Summary On January 26, 2024, a sergeant and six officers allegedly grabbed an incarcerated person by the arms and threw him to the ground. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The OIG did not concur with the hiring authority’s determination because the investigation was insufficient. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. Even though the investigator attempted to interview the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint, he failed to conduct any other relevant interviews. The hiring authority failed to identify the investigation was insufficient to determine an appropriate finding. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator did not conduct all relevant interviews. The investigator failed to interview a sergeant and six officers who were subjects, one officer who was a witness, and failed to identify and interview incarcerated people that the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint identified were present during incident. The investigator’s decision was inappropriate, as the written reports did not provide sufficient evidence to justify not interviewing the subjects, an officer, and incarcerated witnesses. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority relied upon an insufficient investigation to determine a finding regarding the alleged misconduct. The investigator did not interview a sergeant and six officers who were subjects, an officer who was a witness, and failed to identify and interview incarcerated people that the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint identified were present during the incident. Page 24 of 24 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov