OIG
October–December 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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit
Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
From October 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025, the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) completed its review of 42 closed California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) grievance cases involving allegations of
staff misconduct that were resolved through the department’s routine review
process. The OIG rated the department’s overall performance adequate in
21 cases, or 50 percent. The OIG rated the department’s overall performance
improvement needed in nine cases, or 21 percent. The OIG rated the
department’s overall performance inadequate in 12 cases, or 29 percent.
Cases Monitored Retrospectively by the Office of the Inspector General
From October 2025 Through December 2025
Improvement Needed
9
(21%)
N = 42 21 Adequate
Cases (50%)
12
(29%)
Inadequate
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 42 closed routine
review grievance cases involving allegations of staff misconduct reviewed
during this reporting period.
Page 1 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Improvement Needed
25-04-01
Factual Summary
On July 31, 2025, an officer allegedly failed to accommodate a disabled incarcerated
person’s special handcuffing needs when the officer placed handcuffs behind the
incarcerated person’s back and sat him down in his wheelchair, which caused him pain
and difficulty sleeping.
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 supervisor
noted in the decision letter that the officer did not have any prior knowledge of the
incarcerated person’s special handcuffing needs. However, it is unclear in the routine
review how the supervisor conclusively determined the officer did not have prior
knowledge of the incarcerated person’s special handcuffing needs because there is no
record to support that finding.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-02
Factual Summary
On April 16, 2025, two officers allegedly intentionally damaged an incarcerated
person’s prosthetic leg during a cell search.
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 2 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-03
Factual Summary
On August 17, 2025, an officer allegedly entered an incarcerated person’s cell, ripped
down pictures, removed air vent covers, and confiscated an ADA table holder after the
incarcerated person asked to be released for a medical appointment.
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
25-04-04
Factual Summary
On June 22, 2025, an officer allegedly did not seal an incarcerated person’s legal mail
in their presence.
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 provided the officer training. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was adequate.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Improvement Needed
25-04-05
Factual Summary
On and before July 11, 2025, an officer allegedly created a hostile environment and
compromised the safety of staff and incarcerated people when he used disrespectful
and offensive language towards incarcerated people, falsified disciplinary actions,
threatened and intimidated incarcerated people, discriminated against and showed
Page 3 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
favoritism towards certain racial groups, and harassed incarcerated people based on
their gender identities.
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 supervisor
documented in the decision letter that all allegations were addressed. However,
during the interview of the incarcerated person, the supervisor only asked about
threats of disciplinary action for borrowing a fan.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-06
Factual Summary
On April 12, 2025, an unidentified officer allegedly denied an incarcerated person
access to his medically required eyeglasses and shoes for four days after the
incarcerated person transferred to another prison.
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
25-04-07 Adequate
Factual Summary
On July 27, 2025, an officer allegedly made several inappropriate comments about an
incarcerated person’s gender identity and that the incarcerated person did not need a
shower with a curtain.
Page 4 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was adequate.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-08
Factual Summary
On May 14, 2025, and July 2, 2025, an officer allegedly tampered with an incarcerated
person’s legal mail when he placed his finger inside the opened envelope and
slammed it against the cell door.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s claims. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was adequate.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-09
Factual Summary
On July 18, 2025, two officers allegedly delayed emergency medical care for an
incarcerated person. The first officer allegedly was aggressive and unprofessional
during the transport for medical treatment when he failed to accommodate the
incarcerated person’s special handcuffing needs.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was adequate.
Page 5 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-04-10
Factual Summary
On July 11, 2025, and on two prior occasions, an officer allegedly withheld an
incarcerated person’s medical ducat because the incarcerated person refused to sign
the ducat acknowledging receipt.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG did not concur because the routine review was
inadequate and the reviewing authority should have requested additional
fact gathering.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor interviewed the
incarcerated person but did not document whether he asked any questions regarding
the specific allegation that the officer withheld a medical ducat on July 11, 2025,
or the incarcerated person’s allegation that the officer had withheld medical ducats
on two prior occasions. The supervisor also did not interview the officer but should
have inquired about the officer’s alleged practice of requiring signatures on medical
ducats, the officer’s knowledge of policies and procedures governing the distribution
of medical ducats, and the incarcerated person’s allegations of prior similar incidents.
The supervisor should have retrieved video footage from July 11, 2025, because the
incarcerated person alleged that a medical ducat was received on July 11, 2025, but
withheld until July 12, 2025. The supervisor only reviewed video from July 12, 2025.
The supervisor cited an unrelated policy concerning the rights and respect of others in
the decision and did not identify or reference any policies or procedures governing the
issuance of medical ducats. The manager and reviewing authority did not identify the
draft decision’s insufficiencies and should have required additional fact gathering.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-04-11
Factual Summary
On June 26, 2025, an officer allegedly searched an incarcerated person’s bunk area
and locker, wrongfully confiscated his religious medicine bag and dream catcher,
and destroyed the dream catcher. On July 3, 2025, the officer allegedly cursed at the
incarcerated person when the incarcerated person asked to speak to the officer.
Page 6 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
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.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor failed to address the
incarcerated person’s allegation that the officer wrongfully confiscated and destroyed
personal property following a search. Consequently, no video footage related to that
allegation was requested or preserved. The supervisor failed to document a summary
of the review of video footage from July 3, 2025. Although the reviewing manager
deemed the draft decision adequate, the reviewing authority subsequently returned
the draft decision to the reviewing manager and referenced an email directing
additional fact gathering. The reviewing authority did not upload the email to the
records system; therefore, the reviewing authority’s directives were not documented.
The supervisor did not interview the incarcerated person or the officer, resulting in a
lack of basic fact gathering necessary to evaluate the allegations, including whether
the search occurred, whether religious property was confiscated or destroyed, the
existence of witnesses, compliance with documentation and policy requirements, and
the nature of the officer’s interaction with the incarcerated person on July 3, 2025. The
reviewing authority subsequently deemed the draft decision adequate despite these
deficiencies. The reviewing authority issued a decision regarding the grievance on
August 21, 2025, but the Office of Grievances delayed issuing the decision letter to
the incarcerated person 46 days after policy required.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-04-12
Factual Summary
On an unidentified date prior to July 1, 2025, a sergeant allegedly harassed an
incarcerated person by speaking loudly and disrespectfully beside the incarcerated
person’s cell door about unspecified confidential information. The sergeant also
attempted to issue multiple rules violations against the incarcerated person.
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 7 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor requested and
reviewed video footage but failed to document a summary of the footage reviewed
in the department’s confidential records system. However, in the decision letter,
the supervisor stated that he conducted a random review of video footage from an
unrelated date depicting the sergeant as calm and respectful and the incarcerated
person as verbally abusive and irate. However, the supervisor did not identify the
date of the footage, explain the relevance of reviewing random video, or preserve
the video. Therefore, it is unclear whether the footage was relevant to the grievance.
The supervisor interviewed the incarcerated person but did not document whether
he asked questions to elicit the date and time of the alleged misconduct, clarify
the unspecified confidential information that was disclosed, or clarify whether any
witnesses were present. The supervisor did not interview the sergeant. The supervisor
cited regulations governing the rights and respect of others but failed to include the
policies and procedures relevant to the disclosure of confidential information. The
reviewing manager and reviewing authority failed to identify the draft decision’s
deficiencies and instead approved the draft decision as adequate.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-04-13
Factual Summary
On June 26, 2025, an officer allegedly tried to push a cell door into an incarcerated
person as the incarcerated person entered the cell.
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 referred the matter to the
Centralized Screening team for review or requested additional fact gathering.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor did not sufficiently
document fact gathering in the department’s confidential records system. The
supervisor failed to document any attempts to identify and interview the officer, even
though the officer was referenced in the grievance. The supervisor failed to identify
or include the specific policies and procedures relevant to the allegation governing
staff conduct and use of force. The supervisor delayed 47 days after being assigned
the routine review before attempting to conduct the first interview. By that time,
the incarcerated person had been transferred to another prison and declined to be
interviewed. The manager and the reviewing authority should have required additional
fact gathering. The supervisor, manager and reviewing authority failed to identify that
Page 8 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
the allegation concerned an attempted use of force, which is an allegation listed on
the department’s Allegation Decision Index. Therefore, the supervisor should have
suspended the routine review and referred the matter to the Centralized Screening
Team to determine whether the claim should be elevated for an investigation. The
reviewing manager and reviewing authority failed to identify the draft decision’s
deficiencies and instead approved the draft decision as adequate.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-04-14
Factual Summary
On July 10, 2025, an officer allegedly failed to take action after an incarcerated person
reported finding a rock in their food.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG did not concur because the routine review was
inadequate and the reviewing authority should have requested additional
fact gathering.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor failed to document
any fact gathering in the department’s confidential records system, including
summaries of the interviews of the incarcerated person and the officer and whether
video footage was requested or reviewed. The supervisor cited a general regulation
in the decision governing an incarcerated person’s right to appeal but did not
include policies governing food handling and staff responsibilities for responding
to reported food contamination or safety concerns. The manager and the reviewing
authority failed to identify the draft decision’s insufficiencies and should have required
additional fact gathering.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-15
Factual Summary
On April 25, 2025, two officers allegedly transferred an incarcerated person to a
restricted housing unit without medications that were to be kept with the incarcerated
person at all times.
Page 9 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was adequate.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-16
Factual Summary
On June 18, 2025, an officer allegedly used profane language toward an incarcerated
person in a medication line.
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
25-04-17
Factual Summary
On and before April 22, 2025, an officer allegedly submitted several false rules
violation reports against an incarcerated person with the intent to send the
incarcerated person to a mental-health-crisis housing unit without a valid reason.
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 10 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Improvement Needed
25-04-18
Factual Summary
On February 18, 2025, two officers allegedly told an incarcerated person to take a
different route to his medical appointment after he exited a dining hall and called the
incarcerated person a “snitch” when the incarcerated person asked for the officers’
names, which caused nearby officers to laugh.
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 supervisor
reviewed and referenced video footage in the department’s confidential records
system that captured the incident and determined that the video footage disproved
the allegations but failed to preserve the video footage. As a result, the OIG was
unable to review the video footage because the department’s 90-day retention period
had expired.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-19
Factual Summary
On August 11, 2025, an officer allegedly improperly confiscated and read an
incarcerated person’s legal mail.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was adequate
Page 11 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Improvement Needed
25-04-20
Factual Summary
On January 18, 2025, two officers allegedly laughed at an incarcerated person when
she told the officers that a second incarcerated person threatened her safety.
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 supervisor
documented that video footage refuted the allegation that the officers laughed at the
incarcerated person. However, the supervisor failed to preserve the video footage.
The OIG was unable to review the video footage because the department’s 90-day
retention period had expired.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-21
Factual Summary
On July 22, 2025, and August 12, 2025, an officer allegedly targeted an incarcerated
person and used profane language when he told the incarcerated person to remove
a window covering and to get inside their cell and searched the incarcerated person’s
cell without justification.
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 12 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-22
Factual Summary
On February 24, 2025, an officer allegedly acted disrespectfully when she walked by
an incarcerated person’s cell and called the incarcerated person a derogatory name.
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
25-04-23
Factual Summary
On July 8, 2025, a sergeant allegedly was hostile and rude when he told an
incarcerated person that he did not care that the power in the incarcerated person’s
cell did not 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 supervisor did not document the
identity of the third-watch sergeant in the department’s confidential records system.
The supervisor should have memorialized the investigative steps used to identify the
sergeant, interviewed the sergeant, and inquired as to whether he had any interaction
with the incarcerated person in which he spoke rudely or improperly dismissed
the request to restore electricity to the incarcerated person’s cell. The supervisor
documented in the decision letter that the video surveillance footage he reviewed did
not have audio-recording capabilities but still conclusively opined that the sergeant
and the incarcerated person did not interact. In addition, the supervisor should have
reviewed the sergeant’s relevant body-worn camera footage, which would have
recorded any audible interaction between the sergeant and the incarcerated person
and could have objectively supported or refuted the allegations. The supervisor’s
Page 13 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
sole reliance on video surveillance footage was insufficient to make a finding to
disprove the allegations on that evidence alone. As such, the supervisor also should
have interviewed the incarcerated person and at least confirmed whether the video
surveillance footage reviewed by the supervisor accurately captured the entirety of his
interaction with the sergeant. As a result, the reviewing authority did not have all the
necessary information to make an informed decision regarding the alleged misconduct
and should have required additional fact gathering.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-24
Factual Summary
On July 15, 2025, an officer allegedly acted unprofessionally when she told an
incarcerated person to shut up as she grabbed two request slips from the incarcerated
person, crumbled them up, and shoved them back towards the incarcerated person.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was adequate.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-04-25
Factual Summary
On July 13, 2025, an officer allegedly discriminated against an incarcerated person
based on his gender and retaliated against the incarcerated person for a previously
submitted grievance when she shined a flashlight inside the incarcerated person’s cell,
refused to provide her name to the incarcerated person when requested, and told the
incarcerated person she would issue him a rules violation report.
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 14 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor interviewed the
incarcerated person but did not document in the department’s confidential records
system whether she had asked the incarcerated person any questions pertaining
to the alleged misconduct. Specifically, the supervisor advised that officers use
flashlights to reassure the safety and security of all incarcerated people and staff
but did not document whether she had asked the incarcerated person to describe
how the officer discriminates against men and why the officer’s conduct during their
encounter was retaliatory. The supervisor interviewed the officer but did not inquire
as to whether the officer had engaged in gender discrimination and threatened to
issue a retaliatory rules violation report against the incarcerated person for a prior
grievance submitted against other officers. In addition, the supervisor did not review
and preserve relevant video footage that could have corroborated or refuted the
incarcerated person’s allegations. As a result, the reviewing authority did not have
all the necessary information to make an informed decision regarding the alleged
misconduct and should have required additional fact gathering.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-26
Factual Summary
On July 10, 2025, an officer allegedly acted aggressively when he held onto an
incarcerated person’s middle thigh area during a clothed body search.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was adequate.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Improvement Needed
25-04-27
Factual Summary
On August 15, 2025, an officer allegedly damaged an incarcerated person’s sleep
apnea breathing device, disc player, and compact discs during a cell search.
Page 15 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The OIG identified deficiencies in the department’s performance. The supervisor
did not document a summary of the video footage reviewed and a summary of the
supervisor’s inspection of the incarcerated person’s cell and personal property. The
supervisor also did not include in the confidential records system the departmental
policies and procedures governing cell search procedures and the handling of
incarcerated person personal property. Instead, the supervisor cited a policy
related to property registration and disposition. The department failed to document
in its confidential records system whether the decision letter was sent to the
incarcerated person.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-28
Factual Summary
On August 14, 2025, an officer allegedly used unprofessional language when she told
an incarcerated person to leave a second incarcerated person’s cell.
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
25-04-29
Factual Summary
On July 8, 2025, an officer allegedly yelled at and used profanity toward an
incarcerated person. The officer allegedly repeatedly stared at and stalked the
incarcerated person in retaliation for the incarcerated person filing a grievance
against him.
Page 16 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The OIG identified deficiencies in the department’s performance. The supervisor
did not document in the department’s confidential records system whether any
video footage relating to the allegations was requested or reviewed. The supervisor
interviewed the incarcerated person but failed to document whether he had asked the
incarcerated person about the existence of any witnesses to the alleged misconduct.
The supervisor referenced staff assignment and supervisory logs for July 6, 2025,
in the decision but did not upload those documents as exhibits in the confidential
records system.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-30
Factual Summary
On July 30, 2025, an officer allegedly aggressively spoke to an incarcerated person
when the officer told him to tell a second incarcerated person to return to their cell,
which could have caused the second incarcerated person to attack him.
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
25-04-31
Factual Summary
On June 30, 2025, an officer allegedly targeted and harassed an incarcerated person
when she improperly searched the incarcerated person’s cell, removed personal
items, and refused to provide the incarcerated person with her name and a cell
search receipt.
Page 17 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 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 assigned
a supervisor who was personally involved in the incident, which created an implied
bias. Specifically, the supervisor, who is a sergeant, inspected the contraband and
confirmed that a cell search receipt had been given to the incarcerated person. As a
result, the supervisor was a percipient witness to the alleged incident, and ultimately
an unobjective supervisor to review the grievance. The supervisor did not ask the
officer whether she took any of the incarcerated person’s personal property and
whether the search was retaliatory. The supervisor noted that the officer explained to
the incarcerated person why she had conducted the cell search but did not document
her answer in the decision letter. Also, instead of relying on hearsay statements from
the officer’s rules violation report, the supervisor should have confirmed the contents
of the document with the officer. The supervisor did not obtain and review a sufficient
duration of video footage relevant to the allegation’s time frame. The supervisor
reviewed approximately four minutes of video footage, but it did not capture the entire
cell search. The video footage stopped after the officer seized a bag of fermented
fruit used to make alcohol. However, because the incarcerated person alleged that
personal items were also improperly taken from his cell, the supervisor should have
reviewed and preserved video footage that captured the entire cell search. The
supervisor indicated in the decision letter that video footage captured an exchange
between the incarcerated person and the officer, which tended to exonerate the
officer, but the supervisor did not preserve the video footage. The OIG was unable
to review the video footage because the department’s 90-day retention period had
expired. Despite the inadequate fact gathering, the reviewing authority nevertheless
denied the incarcerated person’s grievance. The manager and the reviewing authority
should have required that additional fact gathering be completed.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-32
Factual Summary
On July 2, 2025, an officer allegedly refused to provide a substitute meal after an
incarcerated person found a bug on his dinner tray.
Page 18 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was adequate.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-33
Factual Summary
On June 18, 2025, an officer allegedly retaliated against an incarcerated person when
he used a profane word to describe the incarcerated person after the incarcerated
person made a special handcuffing request.
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
25-04-34
Factual Summary
On May 24, 2025, a sergeant allegedly threatened an incarcerated person and
challenged the incarcerated person to a fight in a dark room. The sergeant also
allegedly disclosed the incarcerated person’s personal information to other
incarcerated people on the yard.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The OIG identified deficiencies in the department’s performance. The supervisor
interviewed the incarcerated person but documented in the department’s confidential
Page 19 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
records system only that he had asked whether the incarcerated person had
anything to add to the grievance. The supervisor did not document whether he had
asked follow-up questions necessary to assess the allegations, including inquiries
into specific statements allegedly made by the sergeant, the circumstances and
location of the alleged threat and challenge to fight, whether any witnesses were
present, and the way the incarcerated person’s personal information was allegedly
disclosed. The supervisor indicated in the decision that the sergeant did not work on
the day of the alleged misconduct but did not upload or reference the documentary
evidence supporting that conclusion as an exhibit in the department’s confidential
records system.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-35
Factual Summary
On July 24, 2025, an officer allegedly acted discourteously when he discarded an
incarcerated person’s legal documents during a cell search.
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
25-04-36
Factual Summary
On June 18, 2025, unidentified officers allegedly improperly confiscated a disabled
incarcerated person’s shoes and walking cane during a cell search.
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 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor should have
interviewed the sergeant and inquired as to whether he had observed any officers
confiscate the incarcerated person’s walking cane and shoes. In addition, the sergeant
could have provided information to help the supervisor locate and interview the
unidentified officers involved in the cell search and inquire as to whether they
improperly took any of the incarcerated person’s property. Next, the supervisor opined
that the cell search receipt conclusively proved that the officers did not confiscate the
incarcerated person’s medically necessary equipment. However, video footage could
have provided an unbiased perspective and shown whether the items confiscated
from the incarcerated person’s cell were all properly accounted for in the cell search
receipt. Despite the inadequate fact gathering, the reviewing authority denied the
incarcerated person’s grievance. The manager and the reviewing authority should
have required additional fact gathering.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Adequate
25-04-37
Factual Summary
On July 16, 2025, an officer allegedly retaliated against an incarcerated person
regarding a previous rules violation report when he gave the incarcerated person’s
mail to a second 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
Improvement Needed
25-04-38
Factual Summary
On April 20, 2025, two officers allegedly ignored an incarcerated person during an
escort when the incarcerated person informed them that his ankles were bleeding due
to the leg restraints placed on him.
Page 21 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred.
Overall Assessment
The OIG identified deficiencies in the department’s performance. The supervisor
did not interview the incarcerated person and did not document any attempts to
identify and interview the two officers. The supervisor should have interviewed the
incarcerated person to obtain identifying or descriptive information about the two
officers involved in the escort, which could have assisted in identifying the officers
through staff sign-in records. The supervisor referenced a staff sign-in record in the
confidential records system but failed to include the document as an exhibit. The draft
decision was forwarded to the reviewing authority without first being reviewed by
a manager.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-04-39
Factual Summary
On February 11, 2025, a noncustody staff member allegedly made discourteous
comments about incarcerated people within the department’s Enhanced
Outpatient Program.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG did not concur because the routine review was
inadequate and the reviewing authority should have requested additional
fact gathering.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor should have
interviewed the incarcerated person to clarify the content of the alleged discourteous
comments, confirm the location and timing of the incident, and obtain additional
details necessary to identify the incarcerated person witnesses referenced in the
grievance, including the incarcerated person who allegedly confirmed that the
noncustody staff member had made the discourteous comments. The supervisor
did not document any attempts to identify and interview the incarcerated person
witnesses the claimant had referenced in the grievance. The supervisor interviewed
the noncustody staff member and confirmed that the noncustody staff member had
maintained a calendar book documenting his work assignments and stated that
he was not working in the specified dorm on the date of the alleged misconduct.
However, the supervisor failed to obtain or preserve copies of the calendar book
Page 22 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
as evidence and did not document whether the calendar book was used to verify
the worker’s assignments on other relevant dates, including dates on which the
alleged misconduct may have occurred. The interview with the noncustody staff
member was limited to three narrowly framed questions, and the supervisor did
not use open-ended follow-up questions to elicit additional relevant information,
such as clarification of the correct date of the alleged misconduct, whether the
noncustody staff member ever worked in the specified dorm, or whether he ever made
discourteous comments. In the decision, the supervisor cited regulations concerning
employee discipline, allegation inquiry and investigation findings, and incarcerated
people’s rights to grieve and appeal, but failed to reference the regulations and
procedures directly applicable to the allegations, including those governing
professionalism, incarcerated people’s rights, and the expectation that staff show
respect for others. The manager and the reviewing authority failed to identify the draft
decision’s insufficiencies and should have required additional fact gathering.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-04-40
Factual Summary
On June 18, 2025, an officer allegedly dumped coffee on an incarcerated person’s
personal photographs, stepped on and smeared the coffee across the photographs,
and threw the incarcerated person’s toothbrush on the floor during a search.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG did not concur because the routine review was
inadequate and the reviewing authority should have requested additional
fact gathering.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor failed to document
whether he had requested and reviewed video footage despite the incarcerated
person identifying a specific date, time, and approximate location the alleged
misconduct occurred. The supervisor did not interview the incarcerated person. The
supervisor should have interviewed the incarcerated person to determine where
within the dorm the search occurred and whether there were any witnesses to
the alleged incident. The supervisor interviewed the officer but did not provide a
detailed summary of the interview in the confidential records system, noting only
that the officer had denied the allegation. The supervisor interviewed an incarcerated
person witness who stated that an incarcerated person’s property had been broken
during a search, but the supervisor failed to document whether relevant follow-
up questions were asked, including whether the witness had observed the officer
smearing coffee on the incarcerated person’s personal photographs or throwing the
Page 23 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
incarcerated person’s toothbrush on the floor. The reviewing manager and reviewing
authority failed to identify the draft decision’s insufficiencies and should have required
additional fact gathering.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Inadequate
25-04-41
Factual Summary
On June 12, 2025, unidentified floor officers and a control booth officer allegedly
ignored an incarcerated person’s repeated requests for an incontinence shower. As
a result, the incarcerated person allegedly sat in soiled linens for more than an hour
before he was allowed an incontinence shower.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG did not concur because the routine review was
inadequate and the reviewing authority should have requested additional fact
gathering.
Overall Assessment
The department’s performance was inadequate. The supervisor did not request
or review video footage and asserted that doing so was unnecessary because the
incarcerated person had provided sufficient information and interviews had been
conducted. However, the supervisor interviewed only the incarcerated person
who had submitted the complaint and a single witness officer. The supervisor
failed to complete all necessary and relevant interviews, including interviews of
the incarcerated person’s cellmate and a second officer who were identified in the
grievance. Interviews of the incarcerated person’s cellmate and the second officer
could have corroborated or refuted whether the requests for an incontinence shower
had been made, how frequently they occurred, the length of the delay, and whether
staff were aware of the incarcerated person’s condition. The supervisor also failed to
document any effort to identify or interview the control booth officer referenced in the
grievance. The supervisor should have identified and interviewed the control booth
officer because that officer was allegedly responsible for coordinating and authorizing
the movement of incarcerated people and, therefore, may have had direct knowledge
of whether the incarcerated person’s requests had been received, acknowledged, or
acted upon, as well as the reason for any delay or denial in providing an incontinence
shower. The supervisor interviewed the incarcerated person but documented in
the confidential records system only that the incarcerated person had ultimately
received a shower and, therefore, was not denied one, thereby mischaracterizing the
allegation, which was that staff had ignored the incarcerated person for more than an
hour, during which he sat in soiled linens, before he was eventually provided with a
shower. Although the supervisor interviewed an officer witness, he did not document
Page 24 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
whether they had asked if the officer observed staff ignoring the incarcerated person’s
repeated requests for an incontinence shower, what specific duties staff were
performing that allegedly prevented them from providing the shower, the length of
the delay, or whether the officer could identify additional staff or incarcerated person
witnesses. Finally, the supervisor failed to obtain and review the staff sign-in sheet for
the date of the alleged misconduct, which would have assisted in identifying potential
witnesses and subjects. The draft decision was forwarded to the reviewing authority
without first being reviewed by a manager. The reviewing authority failed to identify
the draft decision’s insufficiencies and should have required additional fact gathering.
OIG Case Number Rating Assessment
Improvement Needed
25-04-42
Factual Summary
On June 19, 2025, an officer allegedly searched an incarcerated person’s cell, threw
her hygiene products onto the floor, damaged her clothing, and poured cleaning
chemicals onto her food items. On June 20, 2025, the officer allegedly conducted
a second cell search in retaliation for the incarcerated person reporting the prior
search. When the incarcerated person attempted to report this conduct to a
sergeant, the sergeant allegedly yelled at her and threatened to move her out of her
current housing.
Disposition
The reviewing authority conducted a routine review and denied the incarcerated
person’s grievance. The OIG concurred with the reviewing authority’s findings as to all
allegations except for the finding regarding the allegation that the officer had poured
cleaning chemicals onto the incarcerated person’s food items because the routine
review was inadequate to support a determination on that issue. The reviewing
authority should have requested additional fact gathering to address this allegation.
Overall Assessment
The OIG identified deficiencies in the department’s performance. The supervisor
obtained video footage of the search of the incarcerated person’s dorm and locker.
However, during the interview with the officer, the supervisor did not document
whether a relevant portion of the video was shown to the officer or whether the
officer was questioned about his actions during the period when the jug containing an
unknown substance was out of camera range. The draft decision was forwarded to
the reviewing authority without first being reviewed by a manager.
Page 25 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks Independent
Prison Oversight
Published in March 2026
Appendix A
The Assessment Indicators assessed the performance of the supervisor in conducting
the routine review and the performance of the reviewing authority.
Assessment Indicator – Supervisor
1. Did the OIG identify any bias by the supervisor during the routine review?
2. Did the supervisor properly gather and review all relevant documentary and
other evidence?
3. Did the supervisor complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
4. Did the supervisor obtain all relevant and necessary information through
conducted interviews?
5. Did the supervisor thoroughly and appropriately conduct the
routine review?
6. Did the supervisor 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 supervisor provide an appropriate and
supported recommended determination to the reviewing authority?
9. Did the supervisor 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 supervisor for additional
fact gathering?
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?
Page 26 of 29
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
October–December 2025 Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit Routine Review Case Blocks
Independent
Published in March 2026 Prison Oversight
Appendix A (continued)
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 27 of 29
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov
AAmmaarriikk KK.. SSiinngghh
OOIIGG OOFFFFIICCEE ooff tthhee IInnssppeeccttoorr GGeenneerraall
IINNSSPPEECCTTOORR GGEENNEERRAALL SShhaauunn SSppiillllaannee
CChhiieeff DDeeppuuttyy
IInnssppeeccttoorr GGeenneerraall
OOccttoobbeerr––DDeecceemmbbeerr 22002255 SSttaaffff MMiissccoonndduucctt MMoonniittoorriinngg UUnniitt RRoouuttiinnee RReevviieeww CCaassee BBlloocckkss
IInnddeeppeennddeenntt
PPuubblliisshheedd iinn MMaarrcchh 22002266 PPrriissoonn OOvveerrssiigghhtt
Appendix B
Table B–1. Routine Case Review Ratings From October 2025 Through December 2025
OIG Case No. Rating Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
Improvement
25-04-01 Needed No Yes N/A N/A No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-02 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-03 Adequate No Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-04 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Improvement
25-04-05 Needed No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-06 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-07 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-08 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-09 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-10 Inadequate No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-11 Inadequate No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No N/A No
25-04-12 Inadequate No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-13 Inadequate No No No N/A No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-14 Inadequate No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-15 Adequate No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-16 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-17 Adequate No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-04-18 Needed No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-19 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-04-20 Needed No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-21 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-22 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-23 Inadequate No No No N/A No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes N/A No
25-04-24 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-25 Inadequate No No Yes No No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes N/A No
25-04-26 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-04-27 Needed No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No N/A No
25-04-28 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-04-29 Needed No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Table continued on next page.
PPaaggee 2288 ooff 2299
1100111111 OOlldd PPllaacceerrvviillllee RRooaadd,, SSuuiittee 111100,, SSaaccrraammeennttoo,, CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa 9955882277 55 TTeelleepphhoonnee:: ((991166)) 228888--44221122 55 wwwwww..ooiigg..ccaa..ggoovv
AAmmaarriikk KK.. SSiinngghh
OOIIGG OOFFFFIICCEE ooff tthhee IInnssppeeccttoorr GGeenneerraall
IINNSSPPEECCTTOORR GGEENNEERRAALL SShhaauunn SSppiillllaannee
CChhiieeff DDeeppuuttyy
IInnssppeeccttoorr GGeenneerraall
OOccttoobbeerr––DDeecceemmbbeerr 22002255 SSttaaffff MMiissccoonndduucctt MMoonniittoorriinngg UUnniitt RRoouuttiinnee RReevviieeww CCaassee BBlloocckkss
IInnddeeppeennddeenntt
PPuubblliisshheedd iinn MMaarrcchh 22002266 PPrriissoonn OOvveerrssiigghhtt
Appendix B (continued)
Table B–1. Routine Case Review Ratings From October 2025 Through December 2025 (continued)
OIG Case No. Rating Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
25-04-30 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-31 Inadequate Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes N/A No
25-04-32 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-33 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-04-34 Needed No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-35 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-36 Inadequate No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes N/A No
25-04-37 Adequate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-04-38 Needed No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-39 Inadequate No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-40 Inadequate No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes N/A No
25-04-41 Inadequate No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
Improvement
25-04-42 Needed No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes N/A No
Source: Data analyzed by OIG staff.
PPaaggee 2299 ooff 2299
1100111111 OOlldd PPllaacceerrvviillllee RRooaadd,, SSuuiittee 111100,, SSaaccrraammeennttoo,, CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa 9955882277 55 TTeelleepphhoonnee:: ((991166)) 228888--44221122 55 wwwwww..ooiigg..ccaa..ggoovv