June 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks

Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General June 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks Independent Published in August 2025 Prison Oversight During June 2025, the OIG’s Centralized Screening Monitoring Team monitored and closed 1,277 grievances. Of those grievances, the Centralized Screening Team from the California Department of Corrections (the department) and the OIG each determined 1,064 grievances did not contain any allegations of staff misconduct. The OIG determined the remaining 213 grievances contained allegations of staff misconduct (Table 1 below). This month, we are also publishing a statistical review of all the grievances we monitored and closed in the first six months of 2025. Table 2 displays our totals for each of those months. From January 1, 2025, through June 30, 2025, the OIG’s Centralized Screening Monitoring Team monitored and closed 6,926 grievances. Of those grievances, the department’s Centralized Screening Team and the OIG each determined 5,741 grievances did not contain any allegations of staff misconduct. The OIG determined the remaining 1,185 grievances contained allegations of staff misconduct. We assessed the processing of grievances as follows: Table 1. The OIG’s Assessment of 1,185 Grievances for June 2025 All Closed Grievances Staff Misconduct Grievances Only Rating Number of Number of Percentage Percentage Grievances Grievances Adequate 6,331 91.5 815 68.75 Improvement Needed 279 4 78 6.5 Inadequate 316 4.5 292 24.75 Totals 6,926 100 1,185 100 Source: Analysis prepared by staff of the Office of the Inspector General. Table 2. Grievances Processed From January Through June 2025 All Closed Grievances Rating January February March April May June Gr N ie o va . n o c f es Percentage Gr N ie o va . n o c f es Percentage Gr N ie o va . n o c f es Percentage Gr N ie o va . n o c f es Percentage Gr N ie o va . n o c f es Percentage Gr N ie o va . n o c f es Percentage Adequate 774 88.5 982 90.75 875 89.5 1,185 91.5 1,305 92 1,210 95 Improvement Needed 47 5.5 49 4.5 49 5 51 4 57 4 26 2 Inadequate 54 6 51 4.75 54 5.5 57 4.5 59 4 41 3 Totals 875 100 1,082 100 978 100 1,293 100 1,421 100 1,277 100 Staff Misconduct Grievances Adequate 69 54 104 61.5 115 63 111 63 248 78.75 168 79 Improvement Needed 13 10 16 9.5 17 9 10 5.5 15 4.75 7 3 Inadequate 46 36 49 29 51 28 56 31.5 52 16.5 38 18 Totals 128 100 169 100 183 100 177 100 315 100 213 100 Source: Analysis prepared by staff of the Office of the Inspector General. This document presents seven notable cases monitored and closed by the OIG during June 2025. Page 1 of 7 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 June 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks Independent Published in August 2025 Prison Oversight OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 25-0112476-CSMT 25-0112475-CSMT 25-0112472-CSMT Incident Summary On May 6, 2025, three separate incarcerated people alleged a maintenance mechanic often made jokes of a sexual nature, threatened to remove them from their work assignment if they did not sign a contract, and assigned them tasks outside of the scope of their duties. Disposition The Centralized Screening Team referred the allegation the mechanic sexually harassed an incarcerated person back to the prison as a routine allegation of staff misconduct and determined the rest of the complaint did not contain an allegation of staff misconduct. The OIG did not concur, as department policy requires allegations of staff sexual harassment be referred to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team incorrectly upheld their original decision, claiming the allegation did not meet the criteria for staff sexual harassment. The OIG discovered that a memorandum had been created which contained additional information regarding the alleged staff sexual harassment, but the Centralized Screening Team had not reviewed that memorandum. Following a second elevation, the Centralized Screening Team’s management reviewed the memorandum and appropriately referred the allegation of staff sexual harassment to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit. Case Rating The department’s performance was inadequate. The Centralized Screening Team rendered a screening decision without reviewing all documentation related to the complaint. Upon the OIG’s request to consider the contents of the memorandum in arriving at its screening decision, the Centralized Screening Team informed the OIG it did not need to review the document to decide how to handle the complaint. Additionally, the Centralized Screening Team failed to identify the allegation the maintenance mechanic sexually harassed the incarcerated person by often making jokes of a sexual nature as sexual harassment, referring the allegation back to the prison as a routine allegation of staff misconduct. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team incorrectly claimed the allegation did not meet the criteria for staff sexual harassment and upheld its original decision. Following a second elevation, the Centralized Screening Team’s management appropriately referred the allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit. Page 2 of 7 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 June 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks Independent Published in August 2025 Prison Oversight OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 25-0112752-CSMT Incident Summary On May 16, 2025, a supervised person alleged, on various occasions, a parole agent made the supervised person face him while producing urine samples for drug tests, so the parole agent could see his genitals and made lewd comments while the supervised person was providing the sample. Also, the supervised person disputed the length of his parole for a nonviolent crime. Disposition The Centralized Screening Team attempted a clarification interview about the vague allegation that the parole agent made the supervised person face him while producing a urine sample so the parole agent could see his genitals and made lewd comments, but the supervised person had been detained in county jail and could not be interviewed. Subsequently, the Centralized Screening Team determined the complaint did not contain any allegations of staff misconduct. The OIG did not concur as, per policy, a single lewd comment would be a routine allegation of staff misconduct, whereas multiple lewd comments require a referral to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit as sexual harassment. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team determined the incarcerated person described multiple incidents of lewd comments by the parole agent and referred the alleged staff sexual misconduct to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for investigation. Case Rating The department’s performance was inadequate. Initially, the Centralized Screening Team failed to identify the allegation that the parole agent made a supervised person face him while producing urine samples for drug tests, so the parole agent could see his genitals, and made lewd comments to the supervised person as an allegation of staff misconduct at all. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team appropriately referred the allegation of sexual harassment to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for investigation. Page 3 of 7 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 June 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks Independent Published in August 2025 Prison Oversight OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 25-0113078-CSMT Incident Summary On April 1, 2025, a male incarcerated person alleged a female officer inappropriately performed an unclothed-body search of his person. Disposition The Centralized Screening Team determined the complaint did not contain an allegation of staff misconduct. The OIG did not concur as department policy does not allow for cross-gender unclothed-body searches except in an emergency. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team referred the allegation as staff sexual misconduct to Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit. Case Rating The department’s performance was inadequate. Initially, the Centralized Screening Team failed to identify the allegation of an inappropriate cross-gender unclothed-body search as an allegation of staff misconduct. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team referred the allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit as staff sexual misconduct. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 25-0113690-CSMT Incident Summary On April 11, 2025, officers allegedly “tried to man handle” an incarcerated person. During an interview with prison staff, the incarcerated person specified the officers unnecessarily twisted and bent his arms and slammed him to the ground. Disposition Prison staff conducted an interview with the incarcerated person to clarify his allegation. During the interview, the incarcerated person stated that officers unnecessarily twisted and bent his arms and slammed him to the ground. Because prison staff did not provide this clarifying information to the Centralized Screening Team, the Centralized Screening Team attempted to conduct its own clarification interview with the incarcerated person to better understand the allegation that officers “tried to man handle” him. When the incarcerated person refused this second interview, the Centralized Screening Team referred the allegation officers “manhandled” the incarcerated person back to the prison as a routine allegation of staff misconduct. The OIG did not concur because it discovered the clarifying statement the incarcerated person provided during his first interview with prison staff alleging officers unnecessarily twisted and bent his arms and slammed him to the ground. The clarified statement contains an allegation of unreasonable force, Page 4 of 7 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 June 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks Independent Published in August 2025 Prison Oversight which must be referred to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit. Following the OIG’s elevation, which included a copy of the document detailing the incarcerated person’s clarifying statement, the Centralized Screening Team referred the allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for investigation. Case Rating The department’s performance was inadequate. Initially, the Centralized Screening Team failed to identify the allegation that officers “tried to man handle” an incarcerated person as an allegation of unreasonable force. Following the OIG’s elevation—wherein we referenced the more specific statement to prison staff, which prison staff did not provide to the Centralized Screening Team, the Centralized Screening Team appropriately referred the allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for investigation. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 25-0109340-CSMT Incident Summary On April 7, 2025, a formerly incarcerated person and department-approved volunteer alleged a lieutenant refused her entry into the prison and stated her access would only be renewed if she dropped her lawsuit against the prison. Disposition The Centralized Screening Team determined the complaint did not contain an allegation of staff misconduct. The OIG did not concur, as the allegation described staff misconduct not involving an incarcerated person, a distinction, that per policy, requires the allegation to be routed through a separate investigative process than misconduct involving incarcerated people, including a possible investigation by another unit within the Office of Internal Affairs. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team referred the complaint to the hiring authority as an allegation of employee misconduct not involving an incarcerated person for the hiring authority to review and consider requesting an investigation through the Office of Internal Affairs. Case Rating The department’s performance was inadequate. Initially, the Centralized Screening Team incorrectly determined the allegation a lieutenant refused entry to an approved volunteer in retaliation for filing a lawsuit against the prison did not qualify as an allegation of staff misconduct and noted the volunteer could submit a Citizen’s Complaint to the hiring authority. The Centralized Screening Team failed to realize that the hiring authority had already submitted this complaint on the volunteer’s behalf as a Citizen’s Complaint after receiving the allegation verbally. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team appropriately referred the complaint Page 5 of 7 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 June 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks Independent Published in August 2025 Prison Oversight back to the hiring authority, as an allegation of employee misconduct not involving an incarcerated person, for the hiring authority to review and consider requesting an investigation through the Office of Internal Affairs. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 25-0109340-CSMT Incident Summary Between February 6, 2025, and May 14, 2025, staff allegedly confiscated and failed to return an incarcerated person’s durable medical equipment – his cane, compression stockings, and power cord for a breathing machine – when rehousing the incarcerated person in the restricted housing unit. The incarcerated person also requested an adjustment to his hearing aids, more incontinent supplies, and additional showers. Disposition The Centralized Screening Team routed the allegations against staff for failing to provide the incarcerated person his durable medical equipment, and two requests for hearing aid adjustment and additional incontinent supplies back to the prison as a routine policy claim. The OIG did not concur because the department consistently refers Americans with Disabilities Act and durable medical equipment violations as allegations of staff misconduct not on the Allegation Decision Index. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team referred the allegation as a routine allegation of staff misconduct. Case Rating The department’s performance was inadequate. Initially, the Centralized Screening Team failed to identify an allegation that staff confiscated an incarcerated person’s durable medical equipment as a routine allegation of staff misconduct, in keeping with the screening decision for Americans with Disabilities Act and durable medical equipment violations. The OIG disputed the Centralized Screening Team’s decision and sent two follow-up inquiries without response. The OIG sent a third inquiry to the Centralized Screening Team, at which that point they appropriately opened a new grievance and referred the allegation as a routine allegation of staff misconduct, 25 days after the OIG’s initial inquiry. However, prison staff had already completed a routine fact-finding of the allegation 11 business days before the Centralized Screening Team corrected their screening decision, resulting in duplicative work. Page 6 of 7 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 June 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks Independent Published in August 2025 Prison Oversight OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Adequate 25-0112720-CSMT Incident Summary On May 11, 2025, an incarcerated person alleged an incarcerated person had a broken arm and officers pulled on it. During a clarification interview, the incarcerated specified officers pulled on and broke the arm of another incarcerated person. Disposition The Centralized Screening Team conducted a clarification interview and subsequently referred the unreasonable force allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit. The OIG concurred. Case Rating The department’s performance was adequate. The incarcerated person made allegations that could be interpreted as officers pulled on and broke an incarcerated person’s arm or pulled on an incarcerated person’s already broken arm. The Centralized Screening appropriately interviewed the incarcerated person to confirm what he meant and whether staff allegedly harmed him or another incarcerated person. Based on the additional details, the Centralized Screening Team appropriately referred the allegation that officers pulled on and broke the arm of another incarcerated person to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit. Page 7 of 7 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov