OIG
July–September 2025 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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit
Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in January 2026
From July 1, 2025, through September 30, 2025, the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) completed its review of 43 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 inadequate in 16 cases, or 37 percent. The OIG
rated the department’s overall performance improvement needed in 12 cases, or
28 percent. The OIG rated the department’s overall performance adequate in 15 cases,
or 35 percent.
Cases Monitored Retrospectively by the Office of the Inspector General
From July 2025 Through September 2025
Improvement Needed
12
(28%)
Inadequate
16
N = 43 (37%)
Cases
15
(35%)
Adequate
Source: Office of the Inspector General Tracking and Reporting System.
For each reviewed grievance, the OIG evaluated whether departmental staff conducted
thorough, timely, and well-documented routine reviews. The OIG also evaluated
whether reviewing authorities made reasonable determinations based on the evidence
gathered and whether those determinations were supported by applicable departmental
policies and procedures.
In general, an adequate rating indicates that the OIG did not identify any significant
deficiencies. An improvement needed rating indicates that the OIG identified
deficiencies that, while warranting improvement, did not appear to result in a negative
outcome for the department or the routine review. An inadequate rating indicates that
the OIG identified significant deficiencies that resulted in a negative outcome for the
department or the routine review.
Below, the OIG presents case-by-case summaries of the 43 closed routine review
grievance cases involving allegations of staff misconduct reviewed during this
reporting period.
Page 1 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-01
Factual Summary
On December 20, 2024, unidentified mailroom staff allegedly opened an incarcerated
person’s confidential legal 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
inadequate and the reviewing authority should have requested additional
fact gathering.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The fact gatherer failed to document
in the department’s confidential records system whether video footage relevant to
the allegation was requested or reviewed. The fact gatherer failed to conduct any
interviews, including interviews of the incarcerated person and the officer identified
in the grievance. The fact gatherer failed to document any fact gathering in the
department’s confidential records system. The draft decision letter was not reviewed
by a manager before it was forwarded to the reviewing authority. The reviewing
authority failed to identify the draft decision’s insufficiencies and should have required
additional fact gathering.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-02
Factual Summary
On January 24, 2025, an officer allegedly used discourteous language towards an
incarcerated person when the incarcerated person asked the officer to stay out of the
incarcerated person’s medical business and to not handle his medications.
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 fact gatherer failed to collect all
relevant evidence, summarize any interviews, and document any fact gathering in the
Page 2 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
department’s confidential records system. The fact gatherer failed to document any
reasonable attempts to identify the officer referenced in the grievance and failed to
document whether he requested or reviewed video footage. The fact gatherer did not
interview the incarcerated person and failed to provide a rationale for that decision in
the confidential records system. The fact gatherer failed to include in the confidential
records system the relevant departmental policies and procedures relevant to the
allegation, including those governing professionalism. The fact gatherer cited to an
irrelevant operational procedure in the decision as the policy related to the dispersal
of medication and not to the alleged misconduct of the officer being discourteous.
Also in the decision, the fact gatherer noted contacting medical staff assigned to the
restricted housing unit on the date of the alleged misconduct but failed to document
any information about those interactions in the confidential records system. Because
the fact gatherer failed to document any evidence collected during the review, the
recommendation to deny the incarcerated person’s grievance was unsupported. The
reviewing authority failed to identify the draft decision’s insufficiencies and should
have required additional fact gathering.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-03-03
Factual Summary
On March 2, 2025, an officer allegedly delayed issuing a ducat to an incarcerated
person because the officer was watching “television” on the housing unit computer.
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
25-03-04
Factual Summary
On unspecified dates, an officer allegedly refused to provide an incarcerated person
with cell search receipts after searching the incarcerated person’s cell on numerous
occasions.
Page 3 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
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 fact gatherer
failed to document in the department’s confidential records system a summary of the
video footage reviewed and referenced in the decision. The fact gatherer also failed to
document in the confidential records system the review of the incarcerated person’s
cell search history that is referenced in the decision.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Improvement Needed
25-03-05
Factual Summary
On February 20, 2025, an officer allegedly used profanity when speaking to an
incarcerated person.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The OIG identified a deficiency in the department’s performance. The fact gatherer
failed to document in the department’s confidential records system a summary of the
video footage reviewed and referenced in the decision.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Improvement Needed
25-03-06
Factual Summary
On an unspecified date and time, officers allegedly laughed at an incarcerated person
and told him to “birdbath” when the incarcerated person inquired about access to a
shower.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Page 4 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
Overall Assessment
The OIG identified deficiencies in the department’s performance. The fact gatherer
failed to identify, reference, and include in the department’s records system the
applicable departmental policies and procedures related to professionalism and
incarcerated peoples’ access to showers. The fact gatherer failed to include as an
exhibit in the confidential records system the operational procedure referenced by the
officer during his interview. The fact gatherer failed to reference the interview with the
officer in the decision.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-07
Factual Summary
On January 8, 2025, a control booth officer allegedly denied an incarcerated person an
incontinence shower despite the incarcerated person’s repeated requests.
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 reviewing authority found the
fact gathering sufficient and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance despite
significant deficiencies in the routine review. The fact gatherer failed to include as
exhibits in the department’s records system the applicable departmental policies
and procedures related to incarcerated people’s access to incontinence showers. The
fact gatherer failed to identify and interview a staff member and three incarcerated
people present in the housing unit around the time that the incarcerated person
alleged that he requested an incontinence shower. The fact gatherer failed to
follow departmental training and best practices regarding the order for completing
interviews by interviewing the officer who was a subject prior to interviewing the
incarcerated person who submitted the grievance and did not provide justification
in the confidential records system for this deviation. The fact gather failed to gather
all relevant information during interviews conducted. For example, the fact gatherer
did not document in the department’s records system whether he asked the officer
if the incarcerated person requested an incontinence shower on the day in question,
whether the officer generated a shower list for the incarcerated person, and if so,
whether the incarcerated person received a shower or if the request carried over into
the next shift. In addition, the fact gatherer failed to document whether they asked
the officer about the officer’s familiarity with departmental operating procedures
pertaining to incontinence showers. The fact gatherer failed to document in the
Page 5 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
summary of the video footage reviewed that the officer ignored an incarcerated person
who was heard yelling and banging and did not document whether he showed the
video footage to the officer at the time of the officer’s interview. The manager and the
reviewing authority should have required additional fact gathering.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-08
Factual Summary
On October 12, 2024, an officer allegedly wiped his nose with his gloves and then
proceeded to handle incarcerated people’s food without changing gloves.
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 reviewing authority found the
fact gathering sufficient and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance despite
significant deficiencies in the routine review. The fact gatherer failed to provide a
summary of the interview of the officer in the confidential records system and only
noted that the officer was interviewed. According to the decision, the officer claimed
during his interview that he did not recall the date of the alleged incident and the fact
gatherer failed to obtain the custody staff sign-in sheet to confirm whether the officer
was on duty on that date. The fact gatherer did not interview the incarcerated person
and failed to provide a rationale for that decision in the confidential records system.
The fact gatherer should have interviewed the incarcerated person to ascertain
whether any staff or incarcerated person witnesses could be identified. The fact
gatherer failed to identify, reference, and include in the department’s records system
the applicable departmental policies and procedures related to food handling. The
manager and the reviewing authority should have required additional fact gathering.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-09
Factual Summary
On February 27, 2025, a lieutenant and an officer allegedly failed to address an
incarcerated person’s claim that unidentified custody staff disclosed the incarcerated
person’s safety concerns to another unidentified incarcerated person.
Page 6 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
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 reviewing authority found the
fact gathering sufficient and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance despite
significant deficiencies in the routine review. The fact gatherer did not interview
the incarcerated person and failed to provide a rationale for the decision in the
department’s confidential records system. Interviewing the incarcerated person may
have disclosed the time and location the alleged misconduct occurred to determine
if any video footage existed relating to the allegations. The fact gatherer interviewed
the lieutenant who had previously issued a report documenting an interview of the
incarcerated person regarding his safety concerns. However, the fact gatherer failed to
document in the confidential records system whether he referenced the report during
the interview with the lieutenant to refresh his recollection after the lieutenant stated
that he did not recall any interactions with the incarcerated person. A manager did not
review the draft decision before it was forwarded to the reviewing authority. The fact
gathering was not adequate to enable the reviewing authority to make an informed
determination regarding the allegations and the reviewing authority should have
required additional fact gathering.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Improvement Needed
25-03-10
Factual Summary
On March 20, 2025, an officer allegedly failed to provide access to medical care to an
incarcerated person who complained of chest pains.
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 fact gatherer
did not conduct any interviews and failed to provide a rationale for that decision in
the department’s confidential records system. The fact gatherer demonstrated bias
in his summary of video footage by including his personal opinion about why the
incarcerated person sought medical attention, opining that the incarcerated person
attempted to manipulate staff. The fact gatherer failed to identify, reference, and
Page 7 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
include the relevant policies and procedures relating to the allegation, specifically the
procedures governing officers’ responsibilities when an incarcerated person requests
medical care. The reviewing authority issued a decision regarding the grievance on
May 2, 2025, but the Office of Grievances delayed 19 business days to issue a written
decision letter to the incarcerated person, exceeding the department’s regulatory
deadline by nine business days.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-11
Factual Summary
On March 1, 2024, an officer allegedly allowed four incarcerated people to enter
a fifth incarcerated person’s cell where they broke and stole the fifth incarcerated
person’s personal property.
Disposition
The reviewing authority rejected the incarcerated person’s grievance for failure to
submit the grievance within the required timeframe. The OIG did not concur with the
reviewing authority’s decision to reject the claim as the incarcerated person filed a
prior similar grievance within the required timeframe which was not addressed by the
reviewing authority. The reviewing authority should have issued a determination on
the merits of the grievance.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. Although the grievance was
rejected as untimely, the department failed to issue a decision regarding the alleged
misconduct as required by departmental regulations, despite completing a routine
review. The fact gatherer failed to include relevant evidence documenting that
the incarcerated person had previously filed a timely grievance alleging that the
officer allowed four incarcerated people into his cell who then broke and stole his
property. The fact gatherer failed to provide a detailed summary in the department’s
confidential records system of the interview conducted with the incarcerated person
and failed to obtain all relevant and necessary information through the interview
conducted. For example, the fact gatherer only documented that he asked how the
incarcerated person knew the officer allowed four incarcerated people into his cell.
The fact gatherer referenced a written statement made by the incarcerated person
during his interview but failed to upload the statement as an exhibit in the confidential
records system. The fact gatherer failed to follow departmental training and best
practices regarding the order for completing interviews by interviewing the officer
who was a subject prior to interviewing the incarcerated person who submitted the
grievance and did not provide justification in the confidential records system for this
deviation. The fact gatherer failed to identify, reference, and include in the confidential
records system the departmental policies and procedures relevant to the allegation,
Page 8 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
including those governing access to cells by unassigned incarcerated people. The
current grievance was rejected because the claim exceeded the submission time limit.
However, the incarcerated person raised the same allegation in a previous, timely
grievance that the reviewing authority failed to address. As a result, the reviewing
authority improperly rejected the current grievance and should have issued a
determination on the merits of the grievance.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-12
Factual Summary
On January 6, 2025, a sergeant allegedly made verbal threats to an incarcerated
person in retaliation for submitting a grievance against an 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.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The reviewing authority found the
fact gathering sufficient and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance despite
significant deficiencies in the routine review. The fact gatherer did not interview
the sergeant and failed to provide a rationale for that decision in the department’s
confidential records system. The fact gatherer interviewed the incarcerated person
but failed to ask questions that would elicit meaningful information about the alleged
misconduct beyond the timeframe in which it occurred. The fact gatherer did not
inquire about specifics of the verbal threat, the presence of staff or incarcerated
person witnesses, the specific location of the alleged misconduct, or the events
leading up to the incident. The fact gatherer interviewed the escorting officer and
limited his questioning exclusively to establishing a timeline for escort. The fact
gatherer failed to document a thorough summary in the confidential records system
of the video footage reviewed. The summary focused on what the fact-gatherer did
not observe, omitting a description of what was observed and failing to specify the
time frames of the specific footage reviewed. The manager and reviewing authority
approved the draft decision as adequate even though the Centralized Screening
Team improperly routed the case for routine review. Departmental policy requires
that allegations involving retaliation against incarcerated people for reporting staff
misconduct be referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The reviewing
manager and reviewing authority failed to identify the draft decision’s insufficiencies
and instead approved the draft decision as adequate.
Page 9 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-03-13
Factual Summary
On unspecified dates, an officer allegedly allowed volunteer incarcerated people to
complete the telephone sign-up list.
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
25-03-14
Factual Summary
On March 7, 2025, an officer allegedly instructed an incarcerated person to remove
his orthopedic shoes, which were designated as durable medical equipment, and to
replace them with state shoes.
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 fact gatherer
failed to document in the department’s confidential records system a summary of
video footage reviewed and referenced in the decision. The fact gatherer referenced
a Health Care Access Daily Appointment Tracking Log in the decision but failed to
include the log as an exhibit in the department’s confidential records system. The
reviewing authority issued a decision regarding the grievance on April 16, 2025,
but the Office of Grievances delayed 49 business days to issue a written decision
letter to the incarcerated person, exceeding the department’s regulatory deadline by
39 business days.
Page 10 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Improvement Needed
25-03-15
Factual Summary
On January 12, 2025, an officer allegedly disclosed confidential information about a
grievance filed by an incarcerated person to other incarcerated people.
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 fact gatherer
failed to identify, reference, and include in the confidential records system the
departmental policies and procedures relevant to the allegation, including those
governing the disclosure of confidential information, ethics, and professionalism.
The fact gatherer did not obtain all relevant and necessary information through
the interviews conducted. For example, the fact gatherer failed to document in the
confidential records system whether they asked the officer about departmental
policies and procedures pertaining to disclosure of confidential information, ethics, and
professionalism. In addition, the fact gatherer relied on the custody staff sign-in sheet
as a document considered in the decision but failed to include the sign-in sheet as an
exhibit in the department’s confidential records system. The fact gatherer incorrectly
cited a repealed section of the California Code of Regulations in the reasoning section
of the decision.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-16
Factual Summary
On January 31, 2025, three officers allegedly asked an incarcerated person to show
them his soiled diaper when the incarcerated person requested an incontinence
shower and then denied the incarcerated person access to an incontinence shower.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and granted the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The reviewing authority determined that corrective action was
appropriate and issued the officers an employee counseling record. The OIG concurred
with the determination there was sufficient evidence to grant the incarcerated
person’s grievance; however, the reviewing authority should have referred the
matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation regarding the officers’
potential dishonesty.
Page 11 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The fact gatherer failed to document
whether he showed relevant video footage to two officers during their respective
interviews after they both denied asking the incarcerated person to see his soiled
diaper. The fact gatherer relied on the custody staff sign-in sheet to determine that
the third officer was not on duty on the day the alleged misconduct occurred but failed
to include the staff sign-in sheet as an exhibit in the department’s confidential records
system. The reviewing authority should have referred the matter to the Office of
Internal Affairs for an investigation because there is a reasonable belief that the two
officers were dishonest after they denied asking the incarcerated person to show his
soiled diaper, despite video evidence confirming that they made the request.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Improvement Needed
25-03-17
Factual Summary
On an unidentified date, two officers allegedly refused to allow an incontinent
incarcerated person access to chemical cleaning supplies.
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 fact gatherer
did not obtain all relevant and necessary information from the interviews conducted.
For example, the fact gatherer failed to document whether he asked the incarcerated
person the date and time the alleged misconduct occurred and whether the
incarcerated person could identify a subject female officer referenced during his
interview. The fact gatherer failed to document any efforts to identify the subject
female officer. In addition, the fact gatherer failed to document whether he asked
a witness officer whether the incarcerated person had asked for, and was denied,
chemical cleaning supplies. The fact gatherer failed to document any efforts to identify
and interview potential subjects. The manager and the reviewing authority should
have required additional fact gathering.
Page 12 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-18
Factual Summary
On April 9, 2025, a sergeant allegedly came within six inches of the incarcerated
person’s face, yelled at the top of his lungs, called the incarcerated person
discourteous names, and stated he did not care about the incarcerated person’s
upcoming eligibility for parole.
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 fact gatherer obtained and
reviewed video footage and documented that the video footage did not depict any
incident at the time and location provided by the incarcerated person. However, during
the sergeant’s interview, the sergeant confirmed there was, in fact, an interaction
where he raised his voice at the incarcerated person for walking through the rotunda
during an alarm, and the sergeant subsequently verbally counseled the incarcerated
person in his office. The fact gatherer failed to document in the department’s
confidential records system whether he asked the sergeant the date and time that
the interaction with the incarcerated person occurred or if the sergeant called the
incarcerated person any discourteous names. The fact gatherer failed to document
whether they conducted any additional fact gathering to identify the correct time
and location of the interaction described by the sergeant and incarcerated person. By
failing to determine the time and location of the interaction between the sergeant and
incarcerated person, the fact gatherer was unable to request and retrieve potentially
relevant video footage before the department’s 90-day video retention period expired.
The fact gatherer failed to document in the confidential records system whether he
conducted the interviews of the incarcerated person and sergeant in a confidential
location. The manager and reviewing authority found the draft decision sufficient to
determine a finding for each allegation despite the fact gatherer’s failure to conduct
sufficient fact gathering to identify the date and time that the interaction between the
sergeant and the incarcerated person occurred.
Page 13 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Improvement Needed
25-03-19
Factual Summary
On April 8, 2025, an officer allegedly failed to provide an incarcerated person with a
grievance form.
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 fact gatherer
interviewed the incarcerated person but asked only about the date and timeframe of
the alleged incident. The fact gatherer failed to ask about the location of the alleged
misconduct, the events leading up to it, or the presence of any staff or incarcerated
person witnesses. The fact gatherer interviewed the officer but failed to ask whether
he recalled any interactions with the incarcerated person or any specific instance in
which the incarcerated person requested a grievance form from him. The fact gatherer
listed a staff sign-in sheet as a document considered in the decision but failed to
include the sign-in sheet as an exhibit in the confidential records system.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Improvement Needed
25-03-20
Factual Summary
On an unidentified date, three officers were allegedly disrespectful towards
an incarcerated person and failed to respond to the incarcerated person’s
miscellaneous requests for hot water, phone calls, laundry, hair clipper guards, and
fingernail clippers.
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 fact gatherer
failed to document in the confidential records system any information regarding
the evidence collected during the routine review, including whether any video
footage was requested or reviewed. The fact gatherer failed to document in the
confidential records system any attempt to interview the incarcerated person or
Page 14 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
the three officers identified in the grievance and did not provide a rationale for this
decision in the department’s confidential records system. The fact gatherer failed
to identify, reference, and include applicable departmental policy and procedure
records in the department’s confidential records system, specifically those governing
professionalism and the rights and respect of others. The fact gatherer broadly cited
the California Code of Regulations in the controlling authority section of the decision,
failed to identify the specific applicable sections, and incorrectly cited a repealed
section in the reasoning portion of the decision. The decision lacked documentation of
any evidence collected during the routine review.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-21
Factual Summary
On March 24, 2025, unidentified custody staff allegedly retaliated against an
incarcerated person for filing a prior grievance by refusing to let him out of his
cell for medication distribution, ignoring his requests for mental health treatment,
and conducting repeated cell searches without providing a receipt for the
property removed.
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 referred the allegation to the Centralized Screening Team because it involved an
allegation of retaliation for filing a prior grievance.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The fact gatherer failed to identify,
reference, or include in the department’s confidential records system the departmental
policies and procedures relevant to the allegations, including those governing
retaliation, cell searches, and medication distribution. The fact gatherer also did not
document any efforts to establish a reasonable timeframe for the alleged repeated
cell searches following the incarcerated person’s refusal to participate in an interview,
even though cell search logs and receipts could have been obtained to evaluate the
allegation. The fact gatherer failed to provide in the confidential records system a
summary of the video footage reviewed and relied upon in the decision. In addition,
the fact gatherer failed to identify or interview staff who may have engaged in or
witnessed the alleged misconduct, including custody staff visible in video footage, and
did not obtain the staff sign-in sheet for the date and timeframe cited in the grievance,
nor explain this omission in the confidential records system. The reviewing authority
should have referred the allegation to the Centralized Screening Team because it
involved an allegation of retaliation for filing a prior grievance.
Page 15 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-22
Factual Summary
On January 21, 2025, an unidentified captain allegedly placed an incarcerated person
in a restricted housing unit based on false allegations that the incarcerated person
incited violence on an exercise yard. On January 23, 2025, the captain allegedly failed
to provide the incarcerated person with required documents for the transfer to the
restricted housing unit.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG did not concur that the fact gathering was sufficient
to enable the reviewing authority to make a determination on the grievance. The
reviewing authority should have requested additional fact gathering.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The reviewing authority found the
fact gathering sufficient and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance despite
significant deficiencies in the routine review. The fact gatherer failed to identify,
and include as exhibits, the departmental policy and procedure applicable to the
allegations. The fact gatherer also failed to take any investigative steps to address
the allegation that the department did not provide the incarcerated person with
the required documentation during a transfer to a restricted housing unit to include
a lock-up order and a property inventory sheet. Next, the fact gatherer failed to
interview the incarcerated person for clarification on the identity of the captain.
Consequently, the fact gatherer was unable to identify and interview the captain and
any potential witnesses that could have helped resolve the grievance. Finally, the
fact gatherer failed to document whether he identified, obtained, or reviewed any
potentially relevant video footage.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-03-23
Factual Summary
On or before April 16, 2025, unidentified officers allegedly denied an incarcerated
person access to his eyeglasses and therapeutic shoes.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Page 16 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was adequate.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-03-24
Factual Summary
On January 1, 2025, unidentified custody staff allegedly broke an incarcerated
person’s breathing machine while collecting and transporting the incarcerated
person’s property during a housing unit transfer.
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
25-03-25
Factual Summary
On March 15, 2025, an officer allegedly refused to timely open an incarcerated
person’s cell door, which caused the incarcerated person to miss his daily dose of
prescribed medication.
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 17 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-03-26
Factual Summary
On July 6, 2022, and July 7, 2022, an officer allegedly made an unprofessional
comment about causing harm to an 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.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-27
Factual Summary
On March 31, 2025, an officer allegedly entered an incarcerated person’s cell during a
medical emergency and stole the incarcerated person’s hearing-impaired headphones.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG did not concur that the fact gathering was sufficient
to enable the reviewing authority to make a determination on the grievance. The
reviewing authority should have requested additional fact gathering.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The reviewing authority found the
fact gathering sufficient and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance despite
significant deficiencies in the routine review. The fact gatherer interviewed the officer
and learned that a second officer performed the search and entered the incarcerated
person’s cell. However, the fact gatherer failed to interview the second officer about
the incarcerated person’s missing hearing-impaired headphones. As a result, the fact
gatherer improperly relied on the first officer’s assertions and failed to conduct any
meaningful follow-up. The reviewing manager and the reviewing authority failed to
identify the draft decision’s insufficiencies and instead approved the draft decision
as sufficient.
Page 18 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-03-28
Factual Summary
On January 18, 2025, an officer allegedly engaged in discriminatory behavior when he
granted extra privileges to a group of incarcerated people but denied other groups of
incarcerated people the same privileges based solely on race.
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
25-03-29
Factual Summary
On June 22, 2025, an officer allegedly dropped her lapel radio in a housing unit ice
chest and then contaminated the ice when she used dirty gloves to scoop out the
excess ice to retrieve the lapel radio and close the ice chest lid.
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
25-03-30
Factual Summary
On January 29, 2025, an officer allegedly acted unprofessionally when he denied an
incarcerated person extra milk and fruit with his kosher meal.
Page 19 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
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 fact gatherer’s performance. The fact gatherer
obtained and reviewed video footage of the alleged misconduct and made findings
in the department’s confidential records system that the misconduct did not occur.
However, the department failed to provide the same video footage to the OIG
and, instead, provided the OIG video footage that only captured the events that
occurred after the alleged misconduct. As a result, the OIG was unable to conduct an
independent analysis of the same video footage reviewed by the fact gatherer.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-03-31
Factual Summary
On February 10, 2025, an unidentified officer allegedly yelled at an incarcerated
person, claimed the incarcerated person was eavesdropping on his private
conversations, and called the incarcerated person derogatory names under his breath.
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
Inadequate
25-03-32
Factual Summary
On and before February 3, 2025, an officer allegedly continually failed to lock an
incarcerated person’s cell door.
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.
Page 20 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The reviewing authority found the
fact gathering sufficient and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance despite
significant deficiencies in the routine review and should have requested additional
fact gathering. The fact gatherer did not document whether he interviewed or made
any attempts to interview the incarcerated person, the officer, or any other potential
witnesses. The fact gatherer noted that he reviewed body-worn camera footage and
documented his observations in the department’s confidential records system but
failed to take the necessary steps to preserve the video footage. The fact gatherer also
failed to identify the relevant departmental policy and procedure applicable to the
allegations, including policies related to securing housing unit cell doors.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-33
Factual Summary
On February 1, 2025, a supervising cook allegedly did not wear a hair net while
preparing food in a kitchen.
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 fact gatherer interviewed the
supervising cook but failed to ask the supervising cook if he ever failed to wear a hair
net while he prepared food in the kitchen. The reviewing authority approved the fact
gathering as adequate despite the deficiency and should have returned the matter to
adequately address the allegation.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-34
Factual Summary
On April 27, 2025, an officer allegedly harassed an incarcerated person when he
approached the incarcerated person and called her ugly.
Page 21 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review, granted the incarcerated
person’s grievance, and provided training to the officer. The OIG was unable to
determine whether the grievance should have been granted because the department’s
confidential records system is void of any substantive evidence to support a
sustained finding.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The reviewing authority found
sufficient evidence to grant the incarcerated person’s grievance despite the fact
gatherer’s lack of documents and evidentiary proof of his findings in the department’s
confidential records system. Specifically, the fact gatherer failed to document
the methodology used to identify the officer and failed to document whether he
interviewed the incarcerated person or the officer and, if interviewed, how their
statements helped prove the allegation. The fact gatherer also failed to document
whether he analyzed and considered any video footage and, ultimately, how the
video footage supported the incarcerated person’s allegation. The OIG was unable to
verify the fact gatherer’s and the reviewing authority’s findings since the department’s
confidential records system is void of any substantive evidence to support a
sustained finding.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-03-35
Factual Summary
On or before January 28, 2025, an officer allegedly overused his authority and
retaliated against incarcerated people who stood up to him when he refused to
allow other incarcerated people from a different housing unit into a dayroom without
a ducat.
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 22 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-03-36
Factual Summary
On or before July 2, 2025, an officer allegedly argued with another officer in a custody
staff office, exited the office after the argument, and struck an incarcerated person on
the right arm with the office door as the incarcerated person walked past the office.
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
25-03-37
Factual Summary
On and before February 10, 2025, four officers allegedly continually failed to notify
a hearing-impaired incarcerated person of certain program announcements, which
affected the incarcerated person’s ability to access necessary medications and caused
him to miss regularly scheduled meals.
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
25-03-38
Factual Summary
On March 16, 2025, an officer allegedly prematurely woke up incarcerated people,
delayed releasing incarcerated people for meals in specific sections of a housing unit
until they were all dressed and ready to exit their cells, and was disrespectful when
he intentionally mispronounced the name of a religious service within the prison.
Page 23 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
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
Inadequate
25-03-39
Factual Summary
On and before January 13, 2025, a control booth officer allegedly prevented an
incarcerated person from timely reporting to his scheduled work assignments when
he refused to open the incarcerated person’s cell door. The officer also allegedly
threatened other incarcerated people in the housing unit and challenged them to
fistfights if they complained about his improper practices for releasing incarcerated
people to work.
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 reviewing authority found the
fact gathering sufficient and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance despite
that the fact gatherer failed to address one of the allegations. The fact gatherer
interviewed the control booth officer but failed to ask any questions addressing
whether the officer threatened incarcerated people and challenged them to fistfights
if they complained about his alleged improper practices for releasing incarcerated
workers to their scheduled job assignments.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-03-40
Factual Summary
On December 9, 2024, a sergeant allegedly retaliated against an incarcerated
person when he isolated the incarcerated person in a freezing cold housing unit
Page 24 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
cell for contemplating suicide by drug overdose, allegedly filed several false rules
violation reports against the incarcerated person for refusing to work as a confidential
informant, and because the sergeant believed the incarcerated person stabbed an
officer earlier that day.
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 reviewing authority found the
fact gathering sufficient and denied the incarcerated person’s grievance despite
significant deficiencies in the routine review. The fact gatherer failed to review a
housing unit log to confirm the sergeant’s assertion that the incarcerated person was
appropriately housed in a cell on suicide watch. The fact gatherer determined that
the incarcerated person’s grievance was unclear and sporadic, but failed to interview
the incarcerated person for clarification, and determined that the alleged misconduct
did not occur and that no additional witnesses or subjects could be interviewed. The
manager and the reviewing authority should have required additional fact gathering.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Improvement Needed
25-03-41
Factual Summary
On October 31, 2024, November 28, 2024, and December 24, 2024, an officer
allegedly falsified records when she documented that showers were offered and
provided to an incarcerated person when they were not and allegedly claimed that the
incarcerated person interrupted her sleep when he made those requests to shower.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The OIG identified a deficiency in the department’s performance. The fact gatherer
noted in the department’s confidential records system that he reviewed video
footage that proved the misconduct did not occur. However, the fact gatherer failed
to preserve the video footage when he failed to submit a written request to the
prison’s investigative services unit to obtain all relevant video footage. As a result, the
department did not preserve the video footage past its 90-day video retention period.
Page 25 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-03-42
Factual Summary
On January 2, 2025, three officers allegedly were distracted when they watched
television in an office and ignored an incarcerated person while the incarcerated
person tried to alert the officers of his scheduled mental health appointment.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review, granted the incarcerated person’s
grievance, and provided counseling to the officers. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was adequate.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-03-43
Factual Summary
On January 3, 2025, a sergeant allegedly intentionally damaged an incarcerated
person’s air mattress, reading glasses, television, clock, and typewriter, and stole his
lamp and writing board.
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 26 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
Appendix
Appendix A – Assessment Indicator Questions
The Assessment Indicator assessed the performance of the fact gatherer/supervisor in
conducting the routine review and the performance of the reviewing authority.
In general, adequate means the OIG did not identify any significant deficiencies. An
improvement needed rating means the OIG found significant deficiencies, but the
deficiencies did not appear to cause a negative outcome for the department or for the
routine review. An inadequate rating means the OIG found significant deficiencies that
caused a negative outcome for the department or for the routine review.
Assessment Indicator – Fact Gatherer/Supervisor
1. Did the OIG identify any bias by the fact gatherer during the routine review?
2. Did the fact gatherer properly gather and review all relevant documentary
and other evidence?
3. Did the fact gatherer complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
4. Did the fact gatherer obtain all relevant and necessary information through
conducted interviews?
5. Did the fact gatherer thoroughly and appropriately conduct the routine
review?
6. Did the fact gatherer properly document all relevant facts, evidence, and
supporting exhibits in the department’s confidential records system?
7. Was the fact gathering adequate to enable the reviewing authority to make
an appropriate finding regarding each allegation?
8. Based upon the evidence, did the fact gatherer provide an appropriate and
supported recommended determination to the reviewing authority?
9. Did the fact gatherer unreasonably delay in completing the routine review?
10. Did a departmental manager review the draft decision and appropriately
approve the decision or properly return it to the fact gatherer for additional
fact gathering?
Page 27 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
Appendix (continued)
Assessment Indicator – Reviewing Authority
11. Did the reviewing authority ensure that any individual whose personal
interaction with a claimant is part of the claim was excluded from
participating in the process regarding that claim, including any interview of
a claimant conducted as part of the process?
12. Was the reviewing authority who made the determination on the
allegations at least one rank higher than the highest-ranking subject?
13. Did the reviewing authority review the draft decision and supporting
evidence and appropriately determine whether the fact gathering was
adequate to make a determination on each allegation?
14. Did the reviewing authority make an appropriate finding for each allegation?
15. Did the department issue a written decision no later than 60 calendar days
after the grievance was received?
16. Did the Office Of Grievances send the written decision letter to the
incarcerated person no later than 10 business days after its issuance?
17. If corrective action was ordered, did the reviewing authority timely take the
corrective action?
18. Did the reviewing authority unreasonably delay in completing the routine
review?
Page 28 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
Table A–1. Routine Case Review Ratings From July 2025 Through September 2025
OIG Case No. Rating Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
25-03-01 Inadequate No No No N/A No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-02 Inadequate No No No N/A No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-03 Adequate No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-03-04 Needed No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-03-05 Needed No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-03-06 Needed No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-07 Inadequate No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-08 Inadequate No No No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-09 Inadequate No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-03-10 Needed Yes No No N/A No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No N/A No
25-03-11 Inadequate No No Yes No No No No N/A No N/A Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-12 Inadequate No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-13 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-03-14 Needed No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No N/A No
Improvement
25-03-15 Needed No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-03-16 No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Needed
Improvement
25-03-17 Needed No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-18 Inadequate No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-03-19 Needed No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-03-20 Needed No No No N/A No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-21 Inadequate No No No N/A No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-22 Inadequate No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-23 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-24 Adequate No Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-25 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-26 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-27 Inadequate No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-28 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-29 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Source: Data analyzed by OIG staff.
Page 29 of 30
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
July–September 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in January 2026 Prison Oversight
Table A–1. Routine Case Review Ratings From July 2025 Through September 2025 (continued)
OIG Case No. Rating Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
Improvement
25-03-30 Needed No No Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-31 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-32 Inadequate No No No N/A No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-33 Inadequate No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-34 Inadequate No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No
25-03-35 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-36 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-37 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-38 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-39 Inadequate No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-40 Inadequate No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-03-41 Needed No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-03-42 Adequate No Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
25-03-43 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Source: Data analyzed by OIG staff.
Page 30 of 30
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov