May 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks

Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General May 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks Independent Published in June 2025 Prison Oversight During May 2025, the OIG’s Centralized Screening Monitoring Team monitored and closed 1,421 grievances. Of those grievances, the Centralized Screening Team and the OIG each determined 1,106 grievances did not contain any allegations of staff misconduct. The OIG determined the remaining 315 grievances contained allegations of staff misconduct. We assessed the processing of grievances as follows: The OIG’s Assessment of 1,421 Grievances for May 2025 All Closed Grievances Staff Misconduct Grievances Only Rating Number of Number of Percentage Percentage Grievances Grievances Adequate 1,305 92 248 78.75 Improvement Needed 57 4 15 4.75 Inadequate 59 4 52 16.5 Totals 1,421 100 315 100 Source: Analysis prepared by staff of the Office of the Inspector General. This document presents six notable cases monitored and closed by the OIG during May 2025. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 25-0110018-CSMT Incident Summary Between November 11, 2024, and November 15, 2024, outside hospital staff allegedly failed to provide pain medication to an incarcerated person following gender affirming surgery and provided the incarcerated person with other patients’ medical records. Between November 15, 2024, and March 17, 2025, prison health care staff allegedly failed to provide the incarcerated person shower access and incontinence supplies, including feminine products and a vaginal dilator, which resulted in complications urinating and an emergency hospital admission. Between March 17, 2025, and April 4, 2025, health care staff allegedly failed to provide the incarcerated person Page 1 of 6 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 May 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks Independent Published in June 2025 Prison Oversight a vaginal dilator, to which not having the device allegedly caused her need to be hospitalized. The incarcerated person alleged she would have to undergo a revision surgery as a result. Disposition The Centralized Screening Team referred the allegations against prison health care staff for failing to provide the incarcerated person shower access, incontinence supplies, and a vaginal dilator as a routine allegation of staff misconduct to be reviewed by prison staff. The OIG did not concur because the allegations indicated that the staff misconduct caused serious harm to the incarcerated person. Department policy requires this type of allegation to be referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team agreed with the OIG’s recommendation and referred the allegations against prison health care staff to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for an investigation. Case Rating The department’s performance was inadequate. Initially, the Centralized Screening Team incorrectly screened allegations that prison health care staff engaged in misconduct resulting in significant injury to an incarcerated person. The Centralized Screening Team classified the allegations as routine allegations of staff misconduct, whereas department policy considers allegations of this type complex allegations of serious staff misconduct. Following the OIG’s elevation of this issue, the Centralized Screening Team appropriately referred the allegations to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for investigation. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 25-0110230-CSMT Incident Summary On April 5, 2025, a third-party alleged an officer used unreasonable force on an incarcerated person. During an allegation interview, the incarcerated person alleged officers “were over doing it,” when they moved his arms to place him in handcuffs. During a subsequent clarification interview, the incarcerated person alleged an officer slammed him to the ground, pulled his arm causing it to pop, kneed him in the back, picked him up, and tossed him on the ground again. A second officer allegedly squeezed the incarcerated person’s arm “extra hard,” and used profanity toward him, during an escort. Disposition The Centralized Screening Team referred the unreasonable force allegation as a routine allegation of staff misconduct to be reviewed by prison staff. The OIG did not concur Page 2 of 6 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 May 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks Independent Published in June 2025 Prison Oversight because department policy requires allegations of unreasonable force be referred to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team agreed with the OIG’s recommendation to conduct a clarification interview and subsequently referred the alleged unreasonable force by the first officer and profane comments by the second officer to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for investigation. However, the Centralized Screening Team did not recognize that the allegation that a second officer unnecessarily squeezed the incarcerated person’s arm “extra hard” during an escort qualified as an allegation of staff misconduct that should have been referred to the Office of Internal Affairs along with the other unreasonable force allegations. Case Rating The department’s performance was inadequate. Initially, the Centralized Screening Team failed to consider the allegation officers “were over doing it,” when they placed the incarcerated person in handcuffs as an allegation of unreasonable force. The Centralized Screening Team failed to identify the need to conduct a clarifying interview into the vague unreasonable force allegation within the staff misconduct grievance and only conducted a clarification interview following a dispute by the OIG. After conducting the clarification interview, the Centralized Screening Team appropriately referred the alleged unreasonable force by the first officer and profane comments by the second officer to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for investigation. However, the Centralized Screening Team failed to recognize the allegation, made during the clarification interview, that a second officer unnecessarily squeezed the incarcerated person’s arm “extra hard” during an escort as another allegation of unreasonable force. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 25-0110456-CSMT Incident Summary Between July 1, 2014, and March 30, 2025, an officer allegedly continuously engaged in sexual harassment of an incarcerated person. Between April 3, 2025, and April 21, 2025, officers allegedly misgendered the incarcerated person repeatedly and failed to acknowledge her search preference as female. The incarcerated person requested to be transferred to a women’s prison and be provided with female clothing. Disposition The Centralized Screening Team referred the allegation that an officer sexually harassed the incarcerated person to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for investigation and routed the remaining allegations back to the prison as routine issues. The OIG did not concur with routing the repeated misgendering allegation as a routine issue because department policy defines such behavior as gender-based discrimination and requires this type of allegation to be referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an Page 3 of 6 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 May 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks Independent Published in June 2025 Prison Oversight investigation. Following the OIG’s elevation regarding the misgendering allegation, the Centralized Screening Team agreed and referred the allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit. Case Rating Overall, the department performed inadequately. Initially, the Centralized Screening Team failed to consider an allegation of discrimination by officers for repeatedly misgendering an incarcerated person, as an allegation on the Allegation Decision Index. The Centralized Screening Team classified the allegation as a routine policy claim, whereas department policy considers allegations of this type complex allegations of serious staff misconduct. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team appropriately the allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 25-0110611-CSMT Incident Summary On March 15, 2025, a nurse allegedly refused to provide an incarcerated person his medication. Staff allegedly searched for the incarcerated person’s social media profile and harassed the girls the incarcerated person “was talking to, threatening them.” Disposition The Centralized Screening Team referred the allegation that a nurse refused to give the incarcerated person’s medication as a routine allegation of staff misconduct to be reviewed by prison staff and determined the complaint did not contain any other allegations of staff misconduct. The OIG did not concur because the incarcerated person described overfamiliar behavior by the nurse, in searching his social media profile and contacting, harassing, and threatening girls the incarcerated person had been communicating with on the social media platform. Following an elevation by the OIG, the Centralized Screening Team referred the allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for an investigation. Case Rating The department’s performance was inadequate. Initially, the Centralized Screening Team failed to identify allegations of overfamiliarity by staff. The Centralized Screening Team classified the allegation as routine allegations of staff misconduct, whereas department policy considers allegations of this type complex allegations of serious staff misconduct. Page 4 of 6 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 May 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks Independent Published in June 2025 Prison Oversight Following the OIG’s elevation, 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 25-0110837-CSMT Incident Summary On April 28, 2025, two officers allegedly turned off their body-worn cameras when they attempted to influence a counselor’s decision about an incarcerated person’s program needs. One of the officers allegedly harassed other incarcerated people and witnesses involved in the incarcerated person’s lawsuit against the officer, to discourage them from testifying against him. The incarcerated person requested a transfer to a lower security facility due to safety concerns and medical issues. Disposition The Centralized Screening Team routed the body-worn-camera and harassment allegations as routine allegations of staff misconduct and the incarcerated person’s transfer request back to the prison as a routine policy claim. The OIG did not concur with the decision to route the two allegations as routine staff misconduct because department policy requires allegations of staff failure to comply with body-worn-camera activation requirements and intimidating witnesses against them to be referred to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for investigation. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team referred the alleged body-worn-camera violations and allegation of intimidation of witnesses to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for investigation. Case Rating The department’s performance was inadequate. Initially, the Centralized Screening Team inappropriately referred allegations that two officers turned off their body-worn cameras while they attempted to influence the incarcerated person’s counselor about his programming, and one of the officers allegedly harassed and intimidated other incarcerated people, to discourage them from testifying against him in the incarcerated person’s lawsuit, as routine allegations of staff misconduct to be reviewed by prison staff. However, department policy considers these types of allegations complex allegations of serious staff misconduct. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team appropriately referred both allegations to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit. Page 5 of 6 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 May 2025 Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Case Blocks Independent Published in June 2025 Prison Oversight OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 25-0111280-CSMT Incident Summary On April 15, 2025, an officer allegedly used profane, homophobic, and threatening language toward an incarcerated person. The officer also allegedly patted the incarcerated person’s buttocks during a clothed-body search. On April 24, 2025, a lieutenant allegedly violated the incarcerated person’s due process rights by failing to review the audio-video surveillance system recordings related to the incarcerated person’s disciplinary hearing, which the incarcerated person alleged would prove his innocence. On April 29, 2025, a staff member from the Office of Grievances refused to accept a hand-delivered grievance from the incarcerated person that would not fit in the building’s lock box while the staff member was collecting grievances from the lock box. Disposition The Centralized Screening Team referred the officer’s alleged discriminatory and threatening comments to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for an investigation and routed the due process and clothed-body search allegations back to the prison as routine policy claims. The OIG concurred with these decisions. However, the Centralized Screening Team failed to identify the allegation against a staff member for refusing to collect a grievance that did not fit in the complaint lock box. The OIG did not concur with this decision because refusing to collect the grievance was an independent act which prevented the reporting of staff misconduct; department policy requires this type of allegation to be referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team declined to address the allegation at all. Case Rating The department’s performance was inadequate. Specifically, the Centralized Screening Team failed to identify an allegation against an Office of Grievances staff member for refusing to accept a hand-delivered grievance, which did not fit in the grievance lock box, while a staff member collected the contents of the lock box. Following the OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team not only determined the allegation not to be staff misconduct, but they also declined to even address the complaint as a routine policy claim. Page 6 of 6 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov