Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02853/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02853-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edward Hernandez, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2853-PHX-DGC (JM)

ORDER

This case involves, among other issues, Plaintiff’s placement in Special Management

Unit II (“SMU II”) in state prison. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of

Defendants on claims alleging violations of procedural and substantive due process,

violations of the Eighth Amendment based on conditions of confinement, and violations of

the right to practice religion under the RLUIPA. Doc. 126. The Ninth Circuit reversed

November 19, 2009, 357 Fed. Appx. 747, and the mandate issued December 14, 2009

(Doc. 137). On January 29, 2010, the Court directed the parties to simultaneously file

memoranda as to how further factual development may be completed and any other issues

arising from the Ninth Circuit's ruling. Doc. 138. The parties filed the memoranda on

February 11 and 12, 2010. Docs. 139, 141. Having reviewed the memoranda, the Court will

set a status conference to discuss how the case should proceed.

Noting that annual reviews of segregation decisions are insufficient, the Ninth Circuit

found that “[w]hether the debriefing or step down programs are available and adequate

alternatives to more frequent review raises legal and factual questions that cannot be

Case 2:05-cv-02853-DGC Document 153 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 2
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 -

answered on the record as developed thus far.” 357 Fed. Appx. at 748. The Ninth Circuit

further found that being labeled a “prison snitch” could “raise safety concerns that implicate

the Eighth Amendment.” Id. The case was remanded for further factual development on

those issues, and the Ninth Circuit declined to decide the conditions of confinement (lighting

and exercise) and religious practices claims “because they become moot if Plaintiff is not

properly retained in SMU II.” Id.

Defendants propose summary judgment briefing on the availability and details of the

debriefing and step down programs and the Eight Amendment claim relating to

debriefing/snitching. Doc. 139. Plaintiff, through counsel, requests that the Court reopen

discovery as to all issues raised on appeal: due process, Eighth Amendment, and RLUIPA

claims. Doc. 141. Plaintiff states that after the close of discovery, the parties could

conference with the Court and set a trial schedule. Id.

Given the disagreement as to how the case should proceed on remand, a status

conference will be set for August 11, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.

IT IS ORDERED that a status conference is set for August 11, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.

DATED this 19th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:05-cv-02853-DGC Document 153 Filed 07/19/10 Page 2 of 2