Ashker et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 786

Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying 706 Motion to Enjoin CDCR from Retaining Class Members in the SHU.(njvlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
TODD ASHKER, et al.,

8

Case No. 09-cv-05796-CW (NJV)

Plaintiffs,
9

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
ENJOIN CDCR FROM RETAINING
CLASS MEMBERS IN THE SHU

v.
10
MATHEW CATE, et al.,

11

Re: Dkt. No. 706

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
Pending before the court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Enjoin CDCR from Retaining Class

14
15

Members in the SHU. (Doc. 706.) The matter is fully briefed and was previously set for hearing

16

on August 22, 2017. (Docs. 713, 759, 772.) However, because of the unavailability of the

17

McKinleyville courtroom due to a trial presided over by District Judge Gonzalez Rogers, the

18

matter was taken off calendar. (Doc. 777.) Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the court now finds that

19

this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument and takes the matter under

20

submission. For the reasons explained below, the court will deny Plaintiffs' motion.
In their Motion, Plaintiffs claim that CDCR has violated paragraph 13 of the Settlement

21
22

Agreement by placing two class members in the SHU based solely on their gang validation status.1

23

Plaintiffs claim that CDCR has placed two class members in the SHU based on unsubstantiated

24

charges, utterly failing to carry its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that

25

the alleged offense—conspiracy to murder—actually occurred. Plaintiffs claim that in the course

26

of the disciplinary proceedings, CDCR prohibited the class members from challenging the

27
1

28

Paragraph 13 provides, "CDCR shall not place inmates into a SHU, Administrative Segregation,
or Step Down Program solely on the basis of their validation status."

1

evidence against them, thereby violating regulations granting the right to present evidence in

2

defense or mitigation of the charges. Plaintiffs further claim that CDCR violated the Settlement

3

and its own regulations by relying on critical “confidential” information, which, once revealed,

4

undermines the reliability of Defendants’ investigation as based on conflicting findings. Plaintiffs

5

therefore seek an order expunging the class members’ guilty findings, restoring their good time

6

credits, enjoining CDCR from retaining them in the SHU, and ordering their release to General

7

Population housing.

8
9
10

As Plaintiffs note, the court has previously ruled on this issue in another prisoner
challenge. (Doc. 676.) That order was upheld by Senior District Judge Wilken on appeal on
August 1, 2017. (Doc. 771.) As this court stated in its earlier order:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

While the court does have authority under Paragraph 53 to address the CDCR’s
failure to substantially comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, those terms do
not include granting the court broad, general authority to review the CDCR’s decisions
regarding the status of each individual class member. More specifically, nothing in the
Settlement Agreement gives the court authority to review disciplinary decisions by the
CDCR using any standard, much less a heightened one based on its own internal
procedures. Theoretically, the parties could have included such language in the Settlement
Agreement. But they did not do so.
Because the Settlement Agreement does not contain a provision authorizing the
court to review CDCR disciplinary proceedings, the court concludes that it lacks authority
in this proceeding to address Plaintiffs’ contention that there was insufficient evidence to
find the four class members guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.[Footnote omitted.]
This, of course, does not deprive the four men of a remedy. As Defendants have repeatedly
reminded the parties and the court, a remedy for constitutional violations in prison
disciplinary proceedings exists in the form of a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.
(Doc. 676, 7:22-8:9.) Plaintiffs' Motion is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 30, 2017
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
2