Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03286/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03286-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD LEWIS ASHKER and DANNY TROXELL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-3286 CW

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN

PART AS MOOT

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

SCREEN COMPLAINT AND

FINDING ALL CLAIMS

COGNIZABLE

Plaintiffs Todd Ashker and Danny Troxell are prisoners of the

State of California who are incarcerated in the Security Housing

Unit (SHU) at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP). Represented by

counsel, they have filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 in which they seek injunctive relief and damages. 

Case 4:05-cv-03286-CW Document 14 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any

case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity

or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable

claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

2

Defendants Arnold Schwarzenegger (Governor and Chief Executive of

the State of California), Roderick Q. Hickman (Secretary of the

California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency), Jeanne Woodford

(Director of California Department of Corrections (CDC)), Edward

Alameida (former Director of CDC), Richard Kirkland (Warden of

Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP)) and Joe McGrath (former Warden of

PBSP) have filed a motion asking the Court to screen the complaint

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion in

part, DENIES it in part as moot and finds all claims cognizable.

BACKGROUND

On May 19, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Governor

Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Governor Gray Davis, former Governor

Pete Wilson, the commissioners of the Board of Prison Terms (BPT

Defendants), Roderick Hickman, Jeanne Woodford, James Gomez (former

CDC Director), Cal Terhune (former CDC Director), Edward Alameida

and Joe McGrath. See Compl., Ashker v. Schwarzenegger et al., No.

C 04-1967 CW (N.D. Cal.) (May 19, 2004 Complaint). The complaint

alleged the following causes of action: (1) violation of First

Amendment freedom to associate with members of the Aryan

Brotherhood, (2) violation of First Amendment freedom of speech for

not allowing hard-cover books, (3) violation of Fifth Amendment

freedom against self-incrimination for CDC's debriefing

Case 4:05-cv-03286-CW Document 14 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

requirement, (4) violation of Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel

and unusual punishment, also arising from the debriefing

requirement, (5) violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection

clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and of the ex post facto clause

for retention in the SHU on indeterminate status based upon gang

association, (6) violation of the Equal Protection clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment based upon alleged discrimination against

white inmates, and (7) supplemental State law claims. On October

19, 2004, the Court issued a screening order pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A holding that, for the purposes of initial review, all

Plaintiffs' claims were cognizable. 

On January 31, 2005, in case no. C 04-1967 CW, all Defendants

moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Federal Procedure 12(b), to

dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. BPT Defendants Daly, Lawin, Lehman, Roos, Welch,

Granlund, Starn, Risen and Moore also moved, pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 56, for summary judgment on the grounds of

absolute and qualified immunity. 

On June 2, 2005, this Court issued an order denying Defendants'

motion to dismiss Ashker's second cause of action for violation of

his First Amendment right to freedom of speech arising from the

prison's policy of not allowing hard-cover books in the SHU and

granting the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' remaining claims without

prejudice for failure to exhaust. The Court also granted BPT

Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on their absolute and

qualified immunity from Plaintiffs' damages claims. 

On August 11, 2005, Plaintiffs filed this complaint against all

Case 4:05-cv-03286-CW Document 14 Filed 10/12/05 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendants whom they had sued in case no. C 04-1967 CW with the

exception of BPT Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that they have now

exhausted the claims that were dismissed for failure to exhaust in

case no. C 04-1967 CW and that these claims may now proceed on the

merits. The complaint alleges the following causes of action: 

(1) violation of Fifth Amendment freedom against self-incrimination

for CDC's debriefing requirement, (2) violation of Eighth Amendment

prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, also arising from the

debriefing requirement, (3) violation of the Due Process and Equal

Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and of the ex post

facto clause for retention in the SHU on indeterminate status based

upon gang association, (4) violation of the Equal Protection clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment based upon alleged discrimination

against white inmates, (5) violation of First Amendment freedom of

speech for delays in the processing of Plaintiffs' mail, a ban on

hard-cover books and on certain periodicals, including those that

show frontal nudity, (6) violation of First Amendment freedom to

associate with members of the Aryan Brotherhood, and (7)

supplemental State law claims. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs' causes of action in this complaint are the same as

those set forth in their May 19, 2004 complaint (case no. C 04-1967

CW) with the exception of two additional First Amendment claims: 

(1) delays in processing of Plaintiffs' mail, and (2) bans on

certain periodicals, including "biker lifestyle [magazines], i.e.

Easyrider, Biker, Outlaw Biker," and "skin art [magazines], i.e.,

Tattoo, Flash, Tabu Tattoo, and Savage Tattoo." Compl. at 36.

Case 4:05-cv-03286-CW Document 14 Filed 10/12/05 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

I. Identical Legal Claims

The legal claims that are identical to those that were screened

by the Court in the October 19, 2004 screening order are cognizable. 

Defendants' request that the Court screen these claims is DENIED as

moot because the Court has already done so. 

II. Additional First Amendment Claims

A. Mail Processing Delays

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' First

Amendment rights by lengthy mail processing delays.

Prison inmates enjoy a First Amendment right to send and

receive mail. Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995)

(citing Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989)). Prison

officials have a responsibility to forward mail to inmates promptly. 

Bryan v. Werner, 516 F.2d 233, 238 (3d Cir. 1975). Allegations that

mail delivery was delayed for an inordinate amount of time are

sufficient to state a claim for violation of the First Amendment. 

Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1432 (7th Cir. 1996). Any

practice or regulation which unduly delays an inmate’s incoming mail

must accordingly be reasonably related to legitimate penological

interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). These

interests include “security, order, and rehabilitation.” Procunier

v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 (1974), overruled on other grounds,

Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989). 

Plaintiffs' claim of lengthy mail processing delays is

cognizable. 

B. Ban on Certain Periodicals

Plaintiffs allege that biker life-style and skin art magazines

Case 4:05-cv-03286-CW Document 14 Filed 10/12/05 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

are the only magazines available that keep them abreast of current

events regarding issues of particular interest and value to them. 

Plaintiffs allege that they had access to such magazines for over

twenty years in CDC prisons until 2002 when Defendants banned them

because of frontal nudity and "contraband and serious rules

violations." Compl. at 36-37. 

Regulations limiting prisoners' access to publications or other

information are valid only if they are reasonably related to

legitimate penological interests. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S.

401, 413 (1989) (citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 89). There are four

factors to consider when determining whether a regulation is

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests: (1) whether

there is a "valid, rational connection between the prison regulation

and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it";

(2) "whether there are alternative means of exercising the right

that remain open to prison inmates"; (3) "the impact accommodation

of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other

inmates and on the allocation of prison resources generally"; and

(4) the "absence of ready alternatives", or, in other words, whether

the rule at issue is an "exaggerated response to prison concerns." 

Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90. 

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have arbitrarily and without

reasonable penological justification denied Plaintiffs access to

these magazines in violation of the First Amendment and of

California Penal Code §§ 2600 and 2601 regarding prisoners'

entitlement to receive any and all magazines that are available to

the public except materials deemed "obscene." Compl. at 52. This

Case 4:05-cv-03286-CW Document 14 Filed 10/12/05 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

claim is cognizable.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to screen

complaint (Docket no. 4) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as

moot. The Court finds that all of Plaintiffs' claims are

cognizable. Defendants shall file an answer to the complaint or

other responsive pleading within sixty days of the date of this

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/12/05

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03286-CW Document 14 Filed 10/12/05 Page 7 of 7