Pratt v. Hedricks et al

Filing 15

ORDER OF SERVICE re 14 Amended Complaint filed by Ryant Trimale Pratt Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 1/17/2017.. Signed by Judge James Donato on 11/18/16. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RYANT TRIMALE PRATT,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER OF SERVICE

v.
B. HEDRICKS, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.16-cv-01129-JD

12
13

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

14

The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed an amended

15

complaint.
DISCUSSION

16
17

STANDARD OF REVIEW

18

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

19

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

21

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

22

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

23

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

24

Cir. 1990).

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

26

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed

27

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

28

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

1

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

2

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

3

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

4

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face”

5

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

6

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

7

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

8

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

9

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

12

LEGAL CLAIMS

13

Plaintiff alleges that he was improperly found guilty at a prison disciplinary hearing. The

14

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects prisoners from being deprived of life,

15

liberty, or property without due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974).

16

The procedural guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses apply

17

only when a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest is at stake. See Ingraham v.

18

Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 672-73 (1977). Liberty interests can arise both from the Constitution and

19

from state law. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460,

20

466 (1983). The Due Process Clause itself does not confer on inmates a liberty interest in

21

avoiding “more adverse conditions of confinement.” Id. The Due Process Clause itself does not

22

confer on inmates a liberty interest in being confined in the general prison population instead of

23

administrative segregation. See Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 466-68.

24

With respect to liberty interests arising from state law, the existence of a liberty interest

25

created by prison regulations is determined by focusing on the nature of the deprivation. Sandin

26

v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 481-84 (1995). Liberty interests created by prison regulations are

27

limited to freedom from restraint which “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate

28

in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 484. When conducting the Sandin
2

1

inquiry, Courts should look to Eighth Amendment standards as well as the prisoners’ conditions of

2

confinement, the duration of the sanction, and whether the sanctions will affect the length of the

3

prisoners’ sentence. See Serrano, 345 F.3d at 1078. The placement of an inmate in the SHU

4

indeterminately may amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest of “real substance” within the

5

meaning of Sandin. See Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 224.

6

The Supreme Court has established five procedural requirements for disciplinary hearings.

7

See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 539. First, “written notice of the charges must be given to the disciplinary-

8

action defendant in order to inform him of the charges and to enable him to marshal the facts and

9

prepare a defense.” Id. at 564. Second, “at least a brief period of time after the notice, no less
than 24 hours, should be allowed to the inmate to prepare for the appearance before the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

[disciplinary committee].” Id. Third, “there must be a ‘written statement by the factfinders as to

12

the evidence relied on and reasons’ for the disciplinary action.” Id. (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer,

13

408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)). Fourth, “the inmate facing disciplinary proceedings should be allowed

14

to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when permitting him to do so

15

will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.” Id. at 566. Fifth,

16

“[w]here an illiterate inmate is involved . . . or where the complexity of the issues makes it

17

unlikely that the inmate will be able to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate

18

comprehension of the case, he should be free to seek the aid of a fellow inmate, or . . . to have

19

adequate substitute aid . . . from the staff or from a[n] . . . inmate designated by the staff.” Id. at

20

570. The Court specifically held that the Due Process Clause does not require that prisons allow

21

inmates to cross-examine their accusers, see id. at 567-68, and does not give rise to a right to

22

counsel in the proceedings, see id. at 569-70.

23

In Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985), the Court held that the revocation of

24

good-time credits does not comport with the minimum requirements of procedural due process in

25

Wolff unless the findings of the prison disciplinary board are supported by some evidence in the

26

record. The standard for the modicum of evidence required is met if there was some evidence

27

from which the conclusion of the administrative tribunal could be deduced. See id. at 455.

28

Plaintiff states that he was improperly found guilty of committing a battery on another
3

1

inmate resulting in serious bodily injury. It is unknown if plaintiff lost good time credits as

2

punishment, but he states he was placed in the Security Housing Unit for 15 months. Plaintiff also

3

states there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty and defendants neglected to view his

4

evidence. It is unclear if he was not allowed to present his evidence, or defendants chose not to

5

credit it. Regardless, for purposes of screening, plaintiff has stated cognizable claims against

6

defendants Hedrick, Solis and Martinez that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty and

7

that he was not allowed to present his evidence.
CONCLUSION

8
9

1.

The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without

prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint with attachments and copies of this order on the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

following defendants: Chief Deputy Warden B. Hedrick, Captain V. Solis and Lieutenant R.

12

Martinez all at Salinas Valley State Prison.

13
14

2.

In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:
a.

No later than sixty days from the date of service, defendant shall file a

15

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by

16

adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil

17

Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the

18

events at issue. If defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary

19

judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior to the date his summary judgment motion is due. All

20

papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on the plaintiff.

21

b.

At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendant shall also serve, on a

22

separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-

23

954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).

24

See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand and Wyatt notices must be

25

given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss for nonexhaustion is filed,

26

not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement).

27
28

c.

Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with

the Court and served upon defendant no later than thirty days from the date the motion was served
4

1

upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is

2

provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc),

3

and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

4

If defendant files a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff failed to exhaust

5

his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff should take

6

note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),” which is provided

7

to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).
d.

8
9

days after the opposition is served upon him.
e.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

If defendant wishes to file a reply brief, he shall do so no later than fifteen

The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due.

No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date.
3.

All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendant, or

13

defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to

14

defendants or defendants’ counsel.

15

4.

Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

16

No further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the

17

parties may conduct discovery.

18

5.

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

19

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

20

Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

21

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

22

Civil Procedure 41(b).

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2016

25
26
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

27
28
5

1
2

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)
If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case dismissed.

3

A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if

4

granted, end your case.

5

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment.

6

Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact--

7

that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party

8

who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your

9

case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly
supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to

12

interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts

13

shown in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of

14

material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment,

15

if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be

16

dismissed and there will be no trial.

17
18
19
20

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)
If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, they are seeking
to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.
You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that you did

21

exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of declarations

22

(statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that is, documents

23

accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they are authentic, or other

24

sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions.

25
26

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust and it is granted,
your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

27
28
6

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

RYANT TRIMALE PRATT,

Case No. 16-cv-01129-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

B. HEDRICKS, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on November 18, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Ryant Trimale Pratt ID: H-06191
Salinas Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 1050
Soledad, CA 93960

19
20
21

Dated: November 18, 2016

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
7