January–March 2026 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks

Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General January–March 2026 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent Prison Oversight Published in July 2026 From January 1, 2026, through March 31, 2026, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) completed its review of 16 closed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) grievance cases involving allegations of staff misconduct that were resolved through the department’s routine review process. The OIG rated the department’s overall performance adequate in five cases, or 31 percent. The OIG rated the department’s overall performance improvement needed in four cases, or 25 percent. The OIG rated the department’s overall performance inadequate in seven cases, or 44 percent. Cases Monitored Retrospectively by the Office of the Inspector General From January 1, 2026 Through March 31, 2026 Improvement Needed 4 (25%) N = 16 7 Inadequate Cases (44%) 5 (31%) Adequate Source: Office of the Inspector General Tracking and Reporting System. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 26-01-01 On January 13, 2026, an officer allegedly denied an incarcerated person entrance to an educational building, preventing him from attending his college course. The officer allegedly acted unprofessionally when he made disrespectful remarks, laughed at the incarcerated person, and then closed and locked the door to the building. Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG concurred with the finding regarding the allegation the incarcerated person was denied entrance to an educational building but did not concur with the finding regarding the allegation the officer acted unprofessionally because the routine review was inadequate and the reviewing authority should have requested additional fact-gathering. Page 1 of 13 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 January–March 2026 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent Prison Oversight Published in July 2026 Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor failed to address the second allegation that the officer acted unprofessionally when he made disrespectful statements, laughed at the incarcerated person, and closed and locked the door. The supervisor interviewed the officer but did not ask questions about the alleged unprofessional conduct. The supervisor reviewed video footage but did not document whether the footage evidenced any information related to unprofessional conduct. The supervisor also did not reference departmental policy governing staff conduct and professionalism. The reviewing manager and reviewing authority should have required additional fact-gathering and returned the routine review back to the supervisor to address the second allegation. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 26-01-02 Factual Summary On January 29, 2026, an officer allegedly failed to properly process an incarcerated person’s legal mail and left it on the officer’s desk overnight, and a sergeant allegedly conspired with other officers to retaliate against the incarcerated person by delaying delivery of his mail. Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG did not concur because the routine review was poorly documented and did not thoroughly address the second allegation. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor did not document a summary of the video footage reviewed in the confidential records system. The supervisor interviewed the sergeant but did not document whether he asked questions regarding the allegation that the sergeant conspired with other officers to retaliate against the incarcerated person by delaying delivery of his mail. The supervisor also interviewed a witness officer but did not document how the officer was identified, whether the officer witnessed the alleged misconduct, or the relevance of the officer’s interview. The supervisor relied on the officer’s statement that the legal mail was processed the following day due to the mail not fitting into the mailbox slot but did not evaluate whether leaving the legal mail on a desk overnight and delaying its processing complied with applicable policies and procedures governing confidential mail. Department policy requires that if for any reason the mail cannot be processed as regular mail, it shall be returned to the sending incarcerated person. Department policy also requires staff to transport Page 2 of 13 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 January–March 2026 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent Prison Oversight Published in July 2026 incarcerated people’s mail to the appropriate depository as designated by the warden. The reviewing manager and reviewing authority approved the draft decision despite these deficiencies. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 26-01-03 Factual Summary On November 29, 2025, an officer allegedly threatened to place an incarcerated person in a restrictive housing unit if he filed a grievance, and acted discourteously by using profanity and calling the incarcerated person an insulting name. An unidentified sergeant also allegedly threatened to place the incarcerated person in a restrictive housing unit if he refused to sign paperwork indicating he could be around the officer. Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG did not concur because the routine review was inadequate and the reviewing authority should have requested additional fact-gathering. In addition, the OIG did not concur with the reviewing authority’s decision to conduct a routine review because departmental policy requires that allegations of retaliation against incarcerated people for using the grievance process be investigated by the Office of Internal Affairs. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor assigned to conduct the routine review was a sergeant and was not at least one rank higher than the highest-ranking subject. The supervisor determined that the officer was not scheduled to work on the day of the alleged misconduct but did not include the evidence relied upon to support that conclusion in the department’s confidential records system. The supervisor interviewed the incarcerated person but did not document whether any questions were asked to attempt to identify the sergeant. The supervisor interviewed a witness officer and a sergeant but did not document how they were identified, whether they were working with the officer at the time of the alleged misconduct, whether they could identify any additional witnesses, or whether the interviewed sergeant was the same sergeant alleged to have threatened the incarcerated person. The supervisor also did not document any attempts to identify the sergeant or whether video footage was requested or reviewed. The supervisor did not reference the departmental policy prohibiting retaliation for filing grievances. Departmental policy requires that allegations involving retaliation by staff against incarcerated people for reporting alleged staff misconduct shall be referred to the Centralized Screening Team for investigation by the Office of Internal Affairs. The reviewing manager and reviewing authority did not identify these deficiencies and nonetheless approved the draft decision. Page 3 of 13 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 January–March 2026 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent Prison Oversight Published in July 2026 OIG Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 26-01-04 Factual Summary On November 5, 2025, an officer allegedly left an incarcerated person’s cell in a state of disrepair following a cell search, and a sergeant allegedly failed to intervene. Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG did not concur because the reviewing authority should have granted the allegation the officer left the incarcerated person’s cell in a state of disrepair following a search. The routine review was inadequate as to the allegation that a sergeant failed to intervene, and the reviewing authority should have requested additional fact-gathering on this allegation. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor failed to identify and interview the sergeant, despite the incarcerated person identifying the sergeant during his interview. Interviewing the sergeant was necessary because the sergeant was identified as the supervisor during the cell search and could have provided material information regarding the search. The supervisor did not document how staff witnesses were identified or whether they were percipient to the incident. Although the supervisor interviewed the incarcerated person, the only question posed was whether the incarcerated person had any further information regarding the allegation, and no effort was made to elicit details about the alleged misconduct. The supervisor summarized video footage depicting the cell search in the recommended decision but did not enter the information in the department’s confidential records system. The supervisor’s summary of the video evidence was inaccurate, as the footage showed documents and other items on the floor following the search. The supervisor did not collect and review the cell search log and staff sign-in sheet for the date of the incident, which were necessary to identify all potential witnesses. The reviewing manager and the reviewing authority approved the draft decision despite these deficiencies. The department failed to document whether the decision letter was issued to the incarcerated person in the confidential records system. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Adequate 26-01-05 Factual Summary On January 14, 2026, and other unidentified dates, an officer allegedly repeatedly confiscated an incarcerated person’s property, specifically canteen items and appliances, and reissued the property to other incarcerated people. Page 4 of 13 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 January–March 2026 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent Prison Oversight Published in July 2026 Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG concurred. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was adequate. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Improvement Needed 26-01-06 Factual Summary On December 6, 2025, an officer allegedly used profanity, a derogatory term, and yelled at an incarcerated person during a clothed body search. Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG concurred. Overall Assessment The OIG identified deficiencies in the department’s performance. The supervisor did not document any fact-gathering in the department’s confidential records system, including a summary of the reviewed video footage. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Adequate 26-01-07 Factual Summary On October 25, 2025, a sergeant allegedly conducted a non-confidential interview with an incarcerated person through a cell door which enabled other incarcerated people to hear their conversation about the incarcerated person’s grievance. Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG concurred. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was adequate. Page 5 of 13 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 January–March 2026 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent Prison Oversight Published in July 2026 OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Adequate 26-01-08 Factual Summary On November 11, 2025, an officer allegedly shouted discourteous statements after an incarcerated person and a clinician left the officer’s station while attempting to get a broken cart fixed. Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG concurred. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was adequate. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Adequate 26-01-09 Factual Summary On July 28, 2025, an officer allegedly retaliated against an incarcerated person and orchestrated the incarcerated person’s transfer to another prison for exposing a cover-up of a high-profile murder involving other officers. Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG concurred because sufficient evidence established that the incarcerated person’s transfer was due to housing needs. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was adequate. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 26-01-10 Factual Summary Between March 1, 2022, and May 31, 2022, an unidentified sergeant and four officers allegedly disclosed an incarcerated person’s confidential information to other incarcerated people, distributed the incarcerated person’s personal property to other Page 6 of 13 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 January–March 2026 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent Prison Oversight Published in July 2026 incarcerated people, and allowed a second incarcerated person to steal money using the incarcerated person’s brother’s credit card. The officers and other incarcerated people also allegedly contacted the incarcerated person’s family to obtain his medical information. Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG did not concur because the routine review was inadequate and the reviewing authority should have requested additional fact-gathering. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor should have interviewed the incarcerated person to clarify the dates of alleged misconduct, determine whether any supporting documentation was available, identify additional witnesses, and gather additional information regarding the alleged money theft and the contact with the incarcerated person’s family. The supervisor should have obtained and reviewed the custody staff sign-in sheets for the relevant time period, which would have assisted in accurately identifying three of the four officers and to confirm whether the officers were working in the building where the alleged misconduct occurred. The supervisor did not interview three of the four officers identified in the grievance by only last name or, alternatively, document whether the three officers could be specifically identified or located since the alleged misconduct occurred three years prior. The supervisor did not reference policies governing disclosure of confidential incarcerated person information. The reviewing manager and reviewing authority approved the draft decision despite these deficiencies. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Improvement Needed 26-01-11 Factual Summary On November 12, 2025, a counselor allegedly used profanity and was rude toward an incarcerated person. Disposition The hiring authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG concurred. Overall Assessment The OIG identified deficiencies in the department’s performance. The supervisor failed to document any fact-gathering in the department’s confidential records system. Page 7 of 13 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 January–March 2026 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent Prison Oversight Published in July 2026 OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Improvement Needed 26-01-12 Factual Summary On December 3, 2025, an officer allegedly opened an incarcerated person’s legal incoming mail outside of his presence and left it at the cell door without obtaining his signature. Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and granted the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG concurred with the reviewing authority’s finding that legal mail was delivered without obtaining a signature. However, the OIG did not concur with the finding that the mail was unopened. Overall Assessment The OIG identified deficiencies in the department’s performance. The supervisor interviewed two witness officers and a witness supervisor but did not document how they were identified or whether they were percipient to the alleged misconduct. A witness stated that it was possible the mail had been opened by the investigative services unit during inspection, but the supervisor did not follow up on that information. The supervisor conducted two staff interviews telephonically and stated they were completed in confidential settings but did not explain why telephonic interviews were used in lieu of in-person interviews or how confidentiality was ensured. Although the supervisor referenced documentary evidence, including the legal mail envelope, incoming mail list, and staff attendance information, these materials were not preserved in the department’s confidential records system. The supervisor indicated in the recommended decision that video footage was reviewed but did not provide a summary of the reviewed footage. The reviewing manager and reviewing authority should have required the supervisor include referenced exhibits and additional documentation regarding interviews and video footage review. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 26-01-13 Factual Summary On December 11, 2025, an officer allegedly used a flashlight to repeatedly flash a light toward an incarcerated person known to be epileptic and continued doing so after the incarcerated person asked the officer to stop. Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG did not concur because the routine review was Page 8 of 13 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 January–March 2026 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent Prison Oversight Published in July 2026 inadequate and the reviewing authority should have requested additional fact-gathering. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor failed to document any fact-gathering in the department’s confidential records system, including summaries of the interviews conducted with both the incarcerated person and the officer and a summary of the video footage reviewed. Although the supervisor referenced interviews in the recommended decision, the documented statements reflect responses unrelated to the incarcerated person’s allegation, indicating that the questions posed were not tailored to address the alleged misconduct. The supervisor’s analysis focused on the incarcerated person’s behavior during dayroom recall rather than the specific allegation that staff used a flashlight to repeatedly flash a light in the face of the incarcerated person, which indicated a failure to appropriately scope the routine review. The supervisor indicated that video footage was reviewed but did not document a sufficient summary of that footage in the recommended decision. The supervisor noted that the incarcerated person was observed speaking with other incarcerated people at nearby cell fronts, but the supervisor did not identify or interview them as potential witnesses, despite their apparent proximity to the alleged incident. The reviewing manager and reviewing authority should have returned the matter to the supervisor for additional fact-gathering, including identifying and interviewing incarcerated person witnesses observed on video footage, asking questions tailored to the allegation that an officer repeatedly flashed a light in the face of the epileptic incarcerated person, properly documenting all interviews and evidence in the confidential records system, and providing a sufficient summary and analysis of the video footage addressing that allegation. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Improvement Needed 26-01-14 Factual Summary On January 13, 2026, a control booth officer allegedly used profanity towards an incarcerated person over the intercom. Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and granted the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG concurred. The reviewing authority did not document whether any corrective action was taken in the department’s confidential records system. Page 9 of 13 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 January–March 2026 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent Prison Oversight Published in July 2026 Overall Assessment The OIG identified deficiencies in the department’s performance. The supervisor documented that video footage was requested but did not document whether it was received, preserved, or reviewed. The supervisor did not document how the officer was identified. A lieutenant stated during an interview that corrective action had been taken against the officer for this incident; however, the supervisor did not document what corrective action was implemented or when. The reviewing authority granted the incarcerated person’s grievance but did not document whether any corrective action was taken in the department’s confidential records system. The department also did not document whether a decision response letter was issued to the incarcerated person. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 26-01-15 Factual Summary On December 5, 2025, an officer allegedly used profanity toward an incarcerated person, threw the incarcerated person’s breakfast on the floor, and threatened to have other officers damage the incarcerated person’s property. Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG did not concur because the routine review was inadequate and the reviewing authority should have requested additional fact-gathering. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor did not document whether any video footage related to the alleged misconduct was requested or reviewed in the confidential records system. The only fact-gathering documented by the supervisor was an interview of the officer. The supervisor should have interviewed the incarcerated person to confirm the time and location of the alleged misconduct and determine whether any witnesses were present. The supervisor’s recommended decision to deny the grievance was not supported by the evidence, as the only fact-gathering documented consisted of an interview of the officer, who did not recall the interaction with the incarcerated person. The reviewing manager and reviewing authority approved the draft decision despite these deficiencies. The reviewing manager and reviewing authority should have returned the matter to the supervisor to request and review relevant video footage, identify potential witnesses, and conduct all necessary interviews. Page 10 of 13 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 January–March 2026 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent Prison Oversight Published in July 2026 OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Adequate 26-01-16 Factual Summary On November 9, 2025, two officers allegedly yelled out an incarcerated person’s moniker in a crowded housing unit to incite and provoke the incarcerated person. Disposition The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The OIG concurred. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was adequate. Page 11 of 13 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 January–March 2026 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent Prison Oversight Published in July 2026 Appendix A The Assessment Indicators assess the performance of the supervisor in conducting the routine review and the performance of the reviewing authority. Assessment Indicator – Supervisor 1. Did the OIG identify any bias by the supervisor during the routine review? 2. Did the supervisor properly identify, collect, and preserve all relevant evidence? 3. Did the supervisor complete all necessary and relevant interviews? 4. Did the supervisor ask all necessary questions and use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews? 5. Did the supervisor properly document all relevant facts, evidence and supporting exhibits in the department’s confidential records system? 6. Did the supervisor provide an appropriate recommendation to the reviewing authority? 7. Did the supervisor appropriately suspend the routine review and refer the matter to the Centralized Screening Team to determine if the grievance should be elevated to an investigation? 8. Did the supervisor timely complete the routine review? 9. If the routine review was inadequate or incomplete, did the manager return the matter to the supervisor for additional fact gathering? 10. Aside from any issue identified in another question, did the supervisor follow policy and procedure, and comply with best practices during the routine review? Assessment Indicator- Reviewing Authority 11. Did the reviewing authority identify any conflict of interest in the routine review process? 12. Was the reviewing authority at least one rank higher than the highest-ranking subject? 13. Did the reviewing authority appropriately determine whether the routine review was sufficient for each allegation? 14. Did the reviewing authority make an appropriate finding for each allegation? Page 12 of 13 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 January–March 2026 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent Prison Oversight Published in July 2026 Appendix A (continued) 15. Did the Office of Grievances timely send the written decision letter to the incarcerated person? 16. Did the reviewing authority properly document whether corrective action was issued? 17. Did the reviewing authority timely complete the routine review? 18. Aside from any issue identified in another question, did the reviewing authority follow policy and procedure, and comply with best practices during the routine review? Page 13 of 13 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov