Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01605/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01605-81/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 

ANDREW R. LOPEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

S. COOK, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:03-CV-1605-KJM-DAD 

ORDER 

 

 

 The court held a final pretrial conference on this matter on April 16, 2015. At the 

conference and in their pretrial statement, ECF No. 411, the parties requested clarification of the 

court’s summary judgment order issued on March 2, 2015, ECF No. 410. 

 In the summary judgment order the court stated incorrectly that the motion was 

granted as to defendants who had been previously dismissed. (ECF No. 410.) The order should 

be read as granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants S. Cook, K. 

Holmes, M. Martinez, and N. McClure. The Clerk of Court is directed to correct the docket entry 

for the summary judgment order to identify these four defendants as the defendants prevailing on 

summary judgment. 

 Also, in the parties’ joint pretrial statement and as discussed at the pretrial 

conference, ECF No. 411, the parties requested clarification from the court on the following: 

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 415 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 3
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

1) whether the identity of the critical decisionmaker is the only remaining procedural due process 

issue to be tried; 2) whether the court granted summary judgment to plaintiff on his fifteenth 

claim, the procedural due process claim; and 3) whether defendants may present the defense of 

qualified immunity at trial. 

 With regard to the first and second issues, the court confirms that the only 

remaining procedural due process issue to be tried is the identity of the critical decisionmaker. In 

its summary judgment order, the court noted: 

. . . defendants do not dispute that an indeterminate term in the SHU 

implicates a state-created liberty interest, such that [p]laintiff was 

entitled to certain minimal procedural due-process protections, 

including an informal nonadversarial hearing . . . .” (ECF No. 397 

at 4.) Nor do [d]efendants dispute that, under the law of this case, 

[plaintiff] was entitled to such a hearing before prison officials 

completed the gang validation process.” (Id.) Defendants also do 

not dispute that plaintiff was not afforded such a hearing before he 

was validated in November 2000. (Id.) Nonetheless, defendants 

argue “summary judgment is inappropriate because a factual 

dispute exists regarding the identity of the critical decisionmaker.” 

(Id.) 

(ECF No. 410 at 5 (quotations omitted).) It is that factual dispute that precluded summary 

judgment and remains an issue to be tried by a jury. This conclusion is consistent with 

defendants’ briefing in opposition to summary judgment, ECF No. 397 at 4, and defendants’ 

counsel’s concessions at oral argument on summary judgment on November 17, 2014. 

 The court also notes that no claim of substantive due process violations remains to 

be tried. (See ECF No. 178 at 45; ECF No. 184 at 3; ECF No. 319.) 

 With regard to the third issue, it is well-settled that the question of qualified 

immunity is one of law, to be determined by a judge. Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 

756 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 1401 (2015). The court 

finds both prongs of the qualified immunity test satisfied; the conduct attributed to defendants 

violated a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. 

(Cf. ECF No. 410 at 8-9.) Assuming the jury at trial determines one or more of the 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 415 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 3
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

defendants was the critical decisionmaker, no one of those defendants is entitled to qualified 

immunity as a matter of law. They may not raise the defense at trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 1, 2015. 

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 415 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 3