Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02048/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02048-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MAHER SUAREZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,1

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-2048-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On June 30, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff and defendant have filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations and defendant has filed a response to plaintiff’s 

objections. 

///// 

 

1

 Scott Kernan became Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(CDCR) in January 2016, following the retirement of Jeffrey Beard effective January 1, 2016. 

Secretary Kernan is therefore substituted in as a defendant in place of former Secretary Beard. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 

Case 2:12-cv-02048-KJM-EFB Document 83 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court 

adopts the recommendations for the reasons set forth in this order. 

 This matter is before the court on the motion to dismiss brought by former CDCR 

Secretary Beard. The magistrate judge recommends that defendant Beard’s motion to dismiss be 

granted as to plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief intended to cure the alleged violations of his 

Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, but denied to the extent they are intended to cure the 

alleged violations of his equal protection rights. Defendant objects, arguing that any equal 

protection claims against the CDCR Secretary were already dismissed and that the claims against 

the Secretary “are limited to [plaintiff’s] request for the cessation of certain practices that 

allegedly deprived him of due process and his request for an order to remediate those alleged 

violations.” ECF No. 75 at 3 (emphasis added). Defendant’s objection is not supported by the 

record. First, the court did not dismiss plaintiff’s equal protection claims. See ECF No. 43 at 19-

21; ECF No. 46. Second, the court did not limit plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief to his due 

process claims. On June 17, 2014, the undersigned adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations, which construed plaintiff’s complaint as including “claims for prospective 

injunctive relief against the current Secretary of CDCR concerning the challenged CDCR policies 

and procedures plaintiff identifies in his allegations.” ECF No. 43 at 30-31; ECF No. 46. The 

challenged CDCR policies and procedures that plaintiff identifies in his allegations include those 

tied to his equal protection claims. For these reasons, defendant’s objections are overruled. 

 Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s finding that his due process claims against the 

Secretary of CDCR fall within the subject matter of a pending class action, Ashker v. Governor of 

Cal., No. C-09-5796 CW (N.D. Cal.), that plaintiff is a member of the Ashker class, and that his 

due process claims should therefore be dismissed under the authority of Crawford v. Bell, 599 

F.2d 890, 892-93 (9th Cir. 1979). As the magistrate judge found, Crawford holds that “a district 

court may properly dismiss portions of an individual lawsuit that are duplicative of a pending 

class action in which the plaintiff is a class member.” ECF No. 73 at 2. Plaintiff objects that he 

is not seeking the same relief here as is sought by the Ashker plaintiffs and, in particular, that a 

Case 2:12-cv-02048-KJM-EFB Document 83 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

decision in favor of the Ashker plaintiffs would not result in plaintiff’s release from the Pelican 

Bay SHU or expungement of the evidence used to validate him as a gang member from his prison 

file. 

 Plaintiff’s due process claim is a challenge to the quantum of evidence used to validate 

him as a gang membership and the reliability of the confidential statements relied on during the 

validation process. See ECF No. 43 at 16-17. He seeks relief in the form of orders requiring, 

inter alia, his transfer from the Pelican Bay SHU and expungement from his file of any reference 

to gang affiliation based on unreliable evidence or evidence insufficient to support a gang 

validation. See ECF No. 1 at 20. 

 Plaintiff is a member of the Ashker class. The Ashker plaintiffs seek broad relief 

concerning policies and procedures regarding placement and retention of gang affiliates in the 

Pelican Bay SHU, and for the reasons set forth in the findings and recommendations that relief 

would not be available to plaintiff in this action. Moreover, plaintiff has been transferred from 

the Pelican Bay SHU, see ECF No. 81, and his request for relief from the SHU is therefore moot. 

By this action plaintiff also seeks to set aside his gang validation. While plaintiff is a 

member of the Ashker class, the Ashker plaintiffs are not challenging individual gang validation 

determinations. See Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Complaint, ECF No. 388, filed March 11, 2015 in 

Ashker v. Brown, Case No. 4:09-cv-05796-CW.2 Plaintiff’s remaining due process claim is not 

duplicative of claims raised in Ashker and the expungement of gang validation information from 

his prison record is not available to him as a member of the Ashker class. However, it is settled in 

this action that the CDCR Secretary is only a defendant to the extent plaintiff seeks relief related 

“to policies and procedures regarding gang validation and the placement/retention of gang 

affiliates in the SHU.” ECF No. 43 at 29; ECF No. 46. Plaintiff’s due process claim challenges 

his individual validation as a gang member; it does not implicate CDCR policies and procedures 

regarding gang validation. Thus, even though defendant Beard only sought dismissal on the 

ground that the relief plaintiff seeks is encompassed by the Ashker class action, prior rulings in 

 

2

 The court may take judicial notice of the Ashker complaint. See MGIC Indem. Corp. v. 

Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Case 2:12-cv-02048-KJM-EFB Document 83 Filed 02/05/16 Page 3 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

this action establish that he is not a proper defendant on plaintiff’s due process claim. For these 

reasons, plaintiff’s due process claim against defendant Beard will be dismissed. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 30, 2015, are adopted in part, with the 

above replacing that portion of the magistrate judge’s findings that is not consistent with the 

discussion here; 

 2. Defendant Beard’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 58) is granted as to plaintiff’s claims 

for injunctive relief intended to cure the alleged violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due 

process rights and otherwise denied; 

 3. Scott Kernan is substituted in as a defendant in place of Jeffrey Beard; and 

4. Defendant Kernan is directed to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days from 

the date of this order. 

DATED: February 4, 2016 

Case 2:12-cv-02048-KJM-EFB Document 83 Filed 02/05/16 Page 4 of 4