Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00633/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00633-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILBERT SALDAÑA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv0633-LAB (WMc)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

vs.

T. BOREM, et al.,

Defendants.

On February 29, 2012, the Court issued an order adopting Magistrate Judge

McCurine’s report and recommendation, and granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The

order permitted Saldaña to file an amended complaint within thirty days. On March 23,

Saldaña filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order.

Saldaña’s motion complains that the order inaccurately said his drawing was

confiscated during a cell search, and points out it was confiscated while Saldaña’s property

was being searched in preparation for his being moved into a cell. But where the search took

place doesn’t help Saldaña at all. If anything, it renders nonsensical his claim that

Defendants knew the drawing in question was stored separately from contraband

pornography that was also found among Saldaña’s possessions.

The motion also argues that the confiscated drawing was actually a print, not a

drawing in progress. In fact, the allegations are somewhat unclear on this point, because

- 1 - 11cv0633

Case 3:11-cv-00633-LAB-WMC Document 38 Filed 03/28/12 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

Saldaña has argued the confiscation of the drawing hindered his ability to continue drawing

the religious subject depicted in the drawing, which he says interfered with his right to free

exercise and freedom of expression. In addition, the print was of a drawing, and both parties’

briefing refers to the drawing by both terms. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Saldaña

had nearly completed a drawing at the time of the confiscation. (Compl. at n.1.) This gave

the impression that the drawing at issue here may have been undergoing some kind of

improvement or revision. In view of Saldaña’s representations, the order will be deemed

amended to make clear the picture was a completed print. But, as before, whether the

picture in question was a drawing or a print or both makes no difference to the outcome. The

picture was confiscated because it depicted nudity and violence, which it unquestionably

does. 

Finally, Saldaña claims that the picture was not contraband under 15 Cal. Code Reg.

§§ 3006(15)(C)(2) & (5), 3006(17)(A), because it had in fact been approved. The motion for

reconsideration recounts a lengthy approval process in which Sgt. Bently of the prison mail

room allegedly approved the picture. There are two problems with this. First, the complaint

never alleged such an approval. All it says is that Saldaña received the print from his brother

along with others in an envelope addressed to the attention of Sgt. Bentley, and that

Saldaña’s brother had alerted Sgt. Bently to the nature of the prints. But there is no

allegation that Sgt. Bently determined that the drawing was not contraband under the

regulation, or that if he did, that Defendants lacked the authority to rescind that approval. 

Certainly it is likely that as facility captain, Madden would have had the authority to override

the decision of one of his sergeants. In addition, both parties’ allegations make clear the

prison authorities (except possibly for Sgt. Bentley) hadn’t reviewed the picture that was

eventually confiscated, and didn’t know Saldaña had it.

In view of Saldaña’s objections, the Court’s order will be deemed amended to omit

references to his possessing the drawing without notice to the authorities. This does not

change the outcome of the order, however.

/ / /

- 2 - 11cv0633

Case 3:11-cv-00633-LAB-WMC Document 38 Filed 03/28/12 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

The remainder of Saldaña’s motion merely repeats arguments already raised and

considered. It concedes the drawing includes frontal nudity and violence, but argues that the

effect of the drawing is not to incite violence. But this does not change the outcome.

California’s ban on prisoners possessing nude pictures is permissible if there is a commonsense connection between the regulation and a legitimate prison objective, Frost v.

Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 365–67 (9 Cir. 1999), and the Court has found there is. th

Saldaña’s claim that the drawing in question has no corrupting tendencies does not make

the regulation invalid, nor were Defendants required to defer to his judgment about it.

In wanting to possess the picture at issue, Saldaña is not similarly situated to readers

or viewers of different types of material, such as National Geographic, documentaries, and

the like. Furthermore, the fact that Defendants saw but did not confiscate Saldaña’s other

similar religious drawings makes clear it was the nudity and violence they were concerned

about, and not Saldaña’s religious beliefs. Defendants were not required to allow Saldaña

to keep the picture pending a hearing, and he had an adequate post-deprivation remedy.

Saldaña also argues he was not allowed to present sufficient evidence to the tribunal. 

The Court pointed out “[t]he exhibits attached to the complaint make clear he was permitted

to, and did, submit voluminous evidence to the officials.” Saldaña takes issue with this

arguing, he was only allowed to present Exhibits A6 through A9. This is unavailing for two

reasons. First, Exhibits A6 through A9 are substantial. Second, the other exhibits make very

clear Saldaña was allowed to talk and submit other written materials to the tribunal, and

explain the reasons he thought he should prevail. For example, Saldaña attaches his own

grievance forms, as well as the officers’ written decisions which, among other things,

summarize his position.

Due process did not require the tribunal to receive or consider the other evidence

Saldaña attached to his complaint, which he now points to, and which pertains mainly to the

details and value of his religious observance. See Mayweathers v. Newland, 314 F.3d 1062,

1069 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that RLUIPA does not promote excessive entanglement with

religion, in part because it does not require prison officials to develop expertise in religious

- 3 - 11cv0633

Case 3:11-cv-00633-LAB-WMC Document 38 Filed 03/28/12 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

worship). Although he charges these officials with refusal to consider his position, the

pleadings and evidence make clear they did allow him to present his case, but disagreed.

The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED to the extent noted above. In other

respects, it is DENIED. The deadline set in the Court’s order of February 29 is EXTENDED

to April 4, 2012, to give Saldaña sufficient time to file his amended complaint if he wishes

to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 28, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 4 - 11cv0633

Case 3:11-cv-00633-LAB-WMC Document 38 Filed 03/28/12 Page 4 of 4