Wright v. Carasco et al

Filing 58

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE REFERRAL TO PRO SE PRISONER SETTLEMENT PROGRAM; DIRECTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE VADAS TO SCHEDULE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/2/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012)

United States District Court

2

Northern District of California

3
4

Plaintiff,

5
1
6

Case No.: C 10-0064 CW (PR)

DEMETRIUS A. WRIGHT,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE
REFERRAL TO PRO SE PRISONER
SETTLEMENT PROGRAM; DIRECTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE VADAS TO
SCHEDULE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

v.
R. CARRASCO, et al.,

7

Defendants.

8
9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff Demetrius Ahmed Wright, a prisoner at Salinas

11

Valley State Prison (SVSP), filed this pro se civil rights action

12

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

13

Defendant Nurse West’s motion to dismiss the medical and

14

negligence claims against her, granted Defendant Correctional

15

Officer Ferry’s motion for summary judgment on the excessive

16

force, assault and battery claims against him, and denied

17

Defendant Correctional Officer R. Carrasco’s motion for summary

18

judgment on the excessive force, assault and battery claims

19

against him.

20

District’s Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program (PSPSP) for

21

Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas to conduct a settlement conference

22

with Plaintiff and Carrasco.

23

On March 30, 2012, the Court granted

The Court referred the matter to the Northern

Docket no. 43.

On April 12, 2012, Magistrate Judge Vadas notified the

24

parties that a settlement conference would be held on June 20,

25

2012 at California State Prison - Solano (CSP-Solano).

26

no. 45.

27

both the settlement conference and the order of referral to the

28

PSPSP.

Docket

On June 6, 2012, Plaintiff moved the Court to vacate

Docket no. 50.

In a declaration attached to his motion,

Plaintiff argued that his attendance at the settlement conference

2

would cause him undue hardship for the following reasons: (1) he

3

is a sensitive needs yard (SNY) prisoner and, because there is no

4

SNY at CSP-Solano, he would have to be housed in administrative

5

segregation at CSP-Solano; (2) the transfer would result in the

6

loss of his current job assignment at SVSP and associated

7

privileges, eligibility for a security-level reduction in

8

September, participation in programs in which he is involved,

9

assigned housing, and a scheduled visit with his seriously ill

10
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

mother; and (3) the transfer would result in his inability to

11

access his personal property and legal documents in pending

12

actions.

13

Docket no. 50.

On June 11, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to

14

vacate the settlement conference and the PSPSP referral.

15

no. 51.

16

Magistrate Judge Vadas that Plaintiff had refused to get on the

17

bus to be transported to the settlement conference; consequently,

18

the settlement conference date was vacated.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Docket

On June 18, 2012, SVSP prison officials informed

Docket no. 52.

On September 27, 2012, the Court reviewed the above course
of events and ruled as follows:
In view of the above, the Court must determine how
this case should proceed. The Court does not take
lightly Plaintiff’s refusal to attend a court-ordered
settlement conference. Moreover, his refusal to do so
raises serious concerns about his ability to continue
to prosecute this action - specifically, the
possibility exists that, should this case proceed to
trial, he would refuse to attend the trial for the same
reasons he refused to attend the settlement conference.
Because, however, Plaintiff appears to be of the goodfaith belief that his transfer to CSP-Solano to attend
the settlement conference would have resulted in the
not insubstantial negative consequences detailed in his
2

1

declaration, the Court, before deciding how to proceed
further, orders as follows:

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

No later than twenty-eight days from the date of
this Order, Defendant shall file a response to
Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the Court’s order
referring this matter to the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement
Program. Such response shall include a declaration
from an authorized SVSP prison official - who has been
informed of the relevant facts of this case - attesting
to SVSP’s general policy regarding the transfer of
prisoners to other prisons to attend settlement
conferences and/or trials, and, specifically, to how
such a transfer would affect Plaintiff, in view of the
concerns he has raised.
No later than fourteen days from the date
Plaintiff is served with a copy of the response, he
shall file a reply in which he informs the Court and
Defendant whether, in view of the information provided
in the response, he will attend a rescheduled
settlement conference. If Plaintiff informs the Court
and Defendant that he will not attend a rescheduled
settlement conference, he shall show cause why this
action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Additionally, Plaintiff shall inform the
Court and Defendant of the length of his sentence and
his anticipated release date.
Docket no. 53 at 3:6-4:11.
On October 25, 2012, Defendants filed their response to

20

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate.

21

declaration of S. Gomez, the Classification and Parole

22

Representative at SVSP, who attests generally to the policies and

23

procedures attendant to the temporary transfer of inmates to

24

other institutions for court hearings, and specifically to the

25

concerns raised by Plaintiff.

26

the content of Gomez’s declaration of sufficient importance to

27

the matters discussed in this Order that paragraphs 4 through 14

28

are quoted here in full:

Docket no. 54.

Docket no. 55.

3

It includes the

The Court finds

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4. At the request of the Attorney General’s
Office, I have reviewed Plaintiff Demetrius Wright’s
declaration in support of his motion to vacate the
Court’s referral of his case to the pro se prisoner
settlement program. I understand that Plaintiff has
filed this motion to avoid the temporary transfer to
California State Prison-Solano (CSP-Solano) to attend a
settlement conference. In his declaration, Plaintiff
alleges that such a transfer would adversely affect him
in the following ways: (1) he will be housed in
administrative segregation instead of the Sensitive
Needs Yard during his stay at CSP-Solano; (2) he will
not have access to his legal documents - in either this
case or any other - while he is housed at CSP-Solano;
(3) a transfer would cause him to lose his current job
assignment, privileges, programming, housing
assignment, and eligibility for a security level
reduction; and, (4) an upcoming visit with his mother
would have to be cancelled.
5. CDCR’s policies and procedures allow inmates
temporarily transferring to another institution to
attend a court appearance to bring with them all legal
materials related to that case and legal materials for
other cases if the inmate has a pending legal deadline.
Inmates are also allowed to bring with them their
medications, glasses, and any health care appliance
they use (e.g., a cane or walker). All legal property
transferring with the inmate is boxed and transported
in the same vehicle. The inmate will then pick up the
transferred materials at the receiving institution’s
Receiving and Release Office. If the inmate will be
away from the transferring institution for more than
twenty-four hours, his remaining property will be
removed from his cell, inventoried, and stored at the
transferring institution’s Receiving and Release
Office. While all property is searched for contraband
during this process, inmates’ legal documents are not
read.
6. If an inmate’s transfer to another institution
lasts longer than seventy-two hours, the inmate will
lose his existing job assignment, but the transfer will
not adversely affect him because he will still accrue
daily sentencing credits as if he was working. Upon
arrival back to the transferring institution, the

4

1

inmate will be placed on a priority list for a new job
assignment.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

7. If an inmate’s transfer lasts longer than ten
days, he will lose his assigned cell. Upon return, he
will be reassigned to a new cell with a compatible
cellmate, within his designated custody level.
8. The inmate’s transfer will not adversely
affect his custody level, programming eligibility, or
other privileges. All such benefits are restored to
the inmate upon his return to the transferring
institution.
9. Under CDCR policy, all inmates, regardless of
their custody classification, who are temporarily
transferred to another institution will be housed in
administrative segregation during their stay at the
receiving institution. This is because the receiving
institution may not be aware of the inmate’s custody
level and/or programming needs upon arrival. Thus,
inmates are housed in administrative segregation for
their own safety as well as the safety of the other
inmates and staff at the receiving institution.

15
16
17
18

10. If an inmate is scheduled to have a family
member visit during the time that he will be away from
the transferring institution, the institution’s Family
Visit Coordinator will contact the affected family
member and reschedule the visit at a mutuallyconvenient time following the inmate’s return.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

11. With respect to Plaintiff’s allegations, I
estimate that a transfer to another prison to attend a
settlement conference and/or a trial will affect him in
the following ways. Plaintiff is correct that he will
be housed in administrative segregation at the
receiving institution. However, this is not due to his
classification as a Sensitive Needs Inmate; all inmates
regardless of their custody classification temporarily
transferred to another institution are housed in
administrative segregation. Plaintiff is also correct
that a prolonged stay at another institution would
cause him to lose his job and housing assignments.
However, as mentioned above, the loss of his job
assignment would not adversely affect his ability to
accrue sentencing credits and he would be placed on a
priority list for reassignment.
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11
12

12. Plaintiff is incorrect that such a transfer
would cause him to lose the privileges to which he is
entitled or the ability to participate in the various
programs in which he is involved. As mentioned above,
all such benefits are restored to the inmate upon his
return to the transferring institution. Plaintiff is
also incorrect that a transfer would adversely affect
his eligibility for a security-level reduction. If a
hearing for such an event is scheduled during the time
that Plaintiff would be away from the transferring
institution, the hearing would simply be rescheduled to
a time after his return.
13. Plaintiff is also incorrect that he would be
unable to access his legal materials for this case, or
any other, while he is away from the institution. All
legal materials related to the case for which Plaintiff
is attending court, and other legal materials needed to
respond to an imminent deadline in another case, will
transfer with Plaintiff.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

14. With respect to Plaintiff’s visit with his
mother, given that Plaintiff’s declaration was filed in
late June, it has presumably already taken place,
rendering this issue moot. However, if it has not, and
if it is scheduled during a time when Plaintiff will be
away from Salinas Valley, the Family Visiting
Coordinator will ensure that the visit will be timely
rescheduled.
Docket no. 55.
Based on the above, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s

21

temporary transfer to CSP-Solano to attend a settlement

22

conference will not amount to a major disruption of his prison

23

life because it will not adversely affect the duration of his

24

sentence or the conditions of confinement.

25

the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order of

26

referral to the PSPSP.

Thus, Defendant urges

27

In his reply to Defendant’s response, Plaintiff submits that

28

the procedures and conditions described in Gomez’s declaration do

6

1

cause undue hardship.

2

outlined by Gomez were not followed in his case, and that he did

3

not refuse to be transferred for the settlement conference.

4

Nevertheless, Plaintiff informs the Court that he is willing to

5

participate in a court-ordered settlement conference “under the

6

type of conditions outlined by the Declarant for the Defendant.”

7

Docket no. 56 at 1.

8

notified that he soon will be moved to a lower level security

9

institution at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11
12

He further maintains that the procedures

He also informs the Court that he has been

Based on the above, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the
ordering referring this case to the PSPSP is DENIED.
Magistrate Judge Vadas shall SCHEDULE a settlement

13

conference.

14

twenty (120) days of the date of this Order, or as soon

15

thereafter as is convenient to the magistrate judge’s calendar.

16

Magistrate Judge Vadas shall coordinate a time and date for the

17

conference with all interested parties and/or their

18

representatives and, within ten (10) days after the conclusion of

19

the conference, file with the Court a report regarding the

20

conference.

21
22
23
24

The conference shall take place within one-hundred-

The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to Magistrate
Judge Vadas.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/2/2012

25
26

____________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: NJV

27
28

7