Andersen v. Montes et al
Filing
11
ORDER Adopting 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and REFERRING to the Assigned Magistrate Judge for further Screening signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/8/2016. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANDREW S. ANDERSEN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
MARISELA MONTES, et al.,
15
No. 1:16-cv-00236-DAD-SAB
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFERRING
TO THE ASSIGNED MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FOR FURTHER SCREENING
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 6, 9, 10)
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff Andrew S. Andersen is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
20
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 15, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued
21
findings and recommendations recommending that this civil rights action be dismissed due to
22
plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. No. 6.) That recommendation was
23
based upon the decision in Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011), in which the Supreme Court
24
held that a federal habeas court’s review of whether a state prisoner denied parole had received
25
due process was limited to determining whether the prisoner was provided an opportunity to be
26
heard and a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. (Doc. No. 6 at 5.) Those findings
27
and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice objections were to be filed
28
within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on March 31, 2016. (Doc. No. 8.)
1
1
In his objections to the findings and recommendations plaintiff for the most part argues
2
that the Supreme Court’s decision in Swarthout does not govern here because he has brought a
3
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 8) Plaintiff also notes that in addition to his
4
due process claim, his complaint also presented a First Amendment retaliation claim and a claim
5
for violation of his rights under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the Religious
6
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). (Doc. No. 8 at 1–2, 7–8, 11.)
7
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
8
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. To the extent plaintiff argues that his due
9
process claims are not foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Swarthout, his arguments
10
are unavailing. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the procedural requirements of due process
11
in state parole board hearings are “minimal,” and all that is required is that the prisoner be
12
provided “an opportunity to be heard” and “a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.”
13
Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220 (citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Corr. Complex, 442
14
U.S. 1 (1979)). Plaintiff’s arguments that the holding in Swarthout does not apply to his case are
15
unpersuasive.1 As the magistrate judge concluded, the procedural due process rights of state
16
prisoners in parole proceedings under the U.S. Constitution are limited and plaintiff has simply
17
failed to state a cognizable due process claim in light of those limitations.
18
It does appear, however, that in his 60-page complaint plaintiff also has presented a claim
19
of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment related to certain activities allegedly occurring
20
immediately prior to his parole hearing. (Doc. No. 1 at 7–9, 52.) It also appears that plaintiff’s
21
complaint may attempt to present a claim for violation of his rights under the Establishment
22
/////
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff’s attempt to distinguish Swarthout on the ground that it was a habeas action while this
is an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, misses the point. Swarthout concerned the
requirements of due process and controls regardless of whether the current challenge falls within
the “core of habeas corpus.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016); see also
Staich v. Brown, No. 2:15-cv-0560 MCE KJN P, 2015 WL 8530043, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11,
2015) (recommending in light of Swarthout that a civil rights plaintiff’s due process challenge to
the evidence relied upon in denying him parole be dismissed, stating “regardless of whether this
claim is brought in habeas or civil rights, these claims fail”).
2
1
Clause of the First Amendment and RLUIPA.2 (Doc. No. 1 at 55.) These potential claims were
2
not addressed in the magistrate judge’s March 15, 2016 finds and recommendations.
3
Accordingly, those findings and recommendations will be adopted with respect to the dismissal of
4
plaintiff’s due process claims. However, the matter will be referred back to the assigned
5
magistrate judge for screening to determine whether any cognizable First Amendment retaliation
6
claim or Establishment Clause/RLUIPA claim is stated by plaintiff’s complaint and, if not,
7
whether amendment should be permitted.
8
For the reasons set forth above:
9
1. The findings and recommendations filed on March 15, 2016 (Doc. No. 6) are adopted;
10
2. The due process claims alleged in plaintiff’s complaint are dismissed without leave to
11
amend due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim; and
12
3. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for screening as to
13
whether plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim or
14
Establishment Clause/RLUIPA claim and, if not, whether leave to amend should be
15
granted.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated:
November 8, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The undersigned does not mean to suggest that a cognizable claim has been alleged in this
regard. Indeed, it may be that to the extent plaintiff has attempted to present an Establishment
Clause/ RLUIPA claim, it is no more than an attempt on his part to evade the Supreme Court’s
directive in Swarthout and have this court delve into the merits of the parole board’s decision to
deny him parole. However, it is appropriate for the magistrate judge to address any such claim in
the first instance.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?