Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03021/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03021-0/pdf.json

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

Order Severing Non-Cognizable Claims; Directing P to File Suppl.

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Cortez03021_inst-P.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL RUDY CORTEZ,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

MATHEW L. CATE, et al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-03021 JW (PR)

ORDER SEVERING NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIMS FROM

COMPLAINT; DIRECTING PLAINTIFF

TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING

Plaintiff, a California inmate at the Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) in

Crescent City, has filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against PBSP

officials for allegedly unconstitutional acts. On February 19, 2010, the Court found the

complaint stated four cognizable claims and dismissed the remaining claims. Plaintiff

was directed to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies in some of his

claims or, in the alternative, to file a notice to proceed solely on the cognizable claims

and sever all other claims from the original complaint. Plaintiff filed notice on March

11, 2010, that he wishes to proceed solely on the four cognizable claims. (Docket No.

14.) However, before the Court can proceed with serving the complaint, plaintiff must

identify which defendants must answer. 

///

Case 5:09-cv-03021-EJD Document 15 Filed 05/13/10 Page 1 of 6
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

Order Severing Non-Cognizable Claims; Directing P to File Suppl.

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Cortez03021_inst-P.wpd 2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims

or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements:

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated,

and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of

state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

In a lengthy complaint exceeding fifty pages with numerous attachments,

Plaintiff details a history of alleged harassment from January 2004 up to and following

his placement in the segregated housing unit (“SHU”) as a validated prison gang

associate on July 25, 2008. (Compl. at 5, 20.) In connection thereto, plaintiff raised

twenty-two causes of action. The Court found the following four claims cognizable,

and severs all other claims from the complaint. 

1. Right to Association

Claims 4, 7 and 8 state identical claims, alleging generally that plaintiff’s “right

to association” was violated by his placement in the SHU. (Compl. at 41, 42.) 

Although the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment right to freedom of

association is among the rights least compatible with incarceration, Overton v. Bazzetta,

539 U.S. 126, 131 (2003), it has not determined the scope of association rights that

prisoners might retain, id. at 132. Liberally construed, the claim that plaintiff’s right of

Case 5:09-cv-03021-EJD Document 15 Filed 05/13/10 Page 2 of 6
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

Order Severing Non-Cognizable Claims; Directing P to File Suppl.

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Cortez03021_inst-P.wpd 3

association was violated is cognizable. The Court will merge these claims into a single

claim. 

2. First Amendment Retaliation

Claims 9 alleges that defendants retained plaintiff in the SHU as retaliation for

plaintiff exercising his right to file prison grievances on behalf of himself and for other

inmates as a “jailhouse lawyer.” “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor

took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected

conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment

rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” 

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). Accord

Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (prisoner suing prison officials under

§ 1983 for retaliation must allege that he was retaliated against for exercising his

constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action did not advance legitimate

penological goals, such as preserving institutional order and discipline); Barnett v.

Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (same); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778

F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985) (contention that actions “arbitrary and capricious”

sufficient to allege retaliation). Liberally construed, claim 9 is cognizable. 

3. Equal Protection

Claim 11 asserts the violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment right to association

coupled with the Equal Protection clause protection against racial discrimination,

(Compl. at 43-44), as does claim 18, (id. at 47). Plaintiff alleges that defendants are

enforcing rules which effectively forbid prison inmates from associating with member

of their own racial group, i.e., plaintiff cannot associate with other Southern Hispanics

for fear of being identified as a gang associate. (Compl. at 44.) Liberally construed,

claim 11 is cognizable as an equal protection claim. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.

539, 556 (1974); Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 505-06 (2005). The Court will

exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the related state claim, i.e., claim 19, (Compl. at

Case 5:09-cv-03021-EJD Document 15 Filed 05/13/10 Page 3 of 6
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

Order Severing Non-Cognizable Claims; Directing P to File Suppl.

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Cortez03021_inst-P.wpd 4

47).

4. Due Process Claims

Clams 20, 21 and 22 allege violations of plaintiff’s right to due process involving

a protected liberty interest, i.e., a severe change in conditions of confinement. 

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of procedural due process and that

evidence used to validate him as a gang associate does not constitute “some evidence.” 

(Compl. at 49-50.) 

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s due process claim implicates the procedures

under Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1100 (9th Cir. 1986), which prison

officials must follow: (1) they must hold an informal nonadversary hearing within a

reasonable time after the prisoner is segregated, (2) the prisoner must be informed of the

charges against him or the reasons segregation is being considered, and (3) the prisoner

must be allowed to present his views. See Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 1100. Plaintiff’s

claim that the evidence used against him was erroneous and unreliable is also

cognizable, when liberally construed. See Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287-88 (9th

Cir. 2003); Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff’s state due

process claim, i.e., claim 22, is subsumed under the federal due process claim. 

In summary, the following claims are cognizable: 1) defendants violated

plaintiff’s first amendment right to association; 2) defendants placed plaintiff in the

SHU in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right to file grievances; 3)

defendants violated plaintiff’s right to equal protection by discriminating against him on

the basis of race; and 4) plaintiff’s July 25, 2008 placement in the SHU violates due

process. 

C. Named Defendants

Due to the length of the complaint, the Court is unable to ascertain which

defendants should be summoned to answer for the four cognizable claims identified

above and which defendants should be dismissed from this action. Accordingly,

plaintiff is directed to file a supplemental pleading, identifying each defendant who is

Case 5:09-cv-03021-EJD Document 15 Filed 05/13/10 Page 4 of 6
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

Order Severing Non-Cognizable Claims; Directing P to File Suppl.

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Cortez03021_inst-P.wpd 5

individually liable for his actions under at least one of these four cognizable claims. 

Plaintiff is directed to cite directly to the factual allegation(s) as stated in the

original complaint against the specific defendant in support of his claim. Plaintiff

shall limit his pleading to identifying each defendant who is liable under each of the

four cognizable claims from the original complaint. Plaintiff may not attempt to allege

any new claims in the supplemental pleading. The Court will order summons of the

complaint upon the named defendants in plaintiff’s supplemental pleading. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. Within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff shall file a 

supplemental pleading identifying the defendants in this action. The supplemental

pleading must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the

words “SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT” on the first page and the case number for

this action, Case No. C 09-03021 JW ( PR). Plaintiff must follow the Court’s specific

instructions with regards to the supplemental pleading to avoid further delay in this

action. 

Failure to file a supplemental complaint in the time provided will result in

dismissal of this action without prejudice without further notice to plaintiff. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall include a copy of the original complaint 

(Docket No. 1), without the attachments, with a copy of this order to plaintiff to aid him

in filing the supplemental pleading in accordance with the Court’s instructions. 

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

May 11, 2010 

Case 5:09-cv-03021-EJD Document 15 Filed 05/13/10 Page 5 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL R. CORTEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MATTHEW L. CATE, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV09-03021 JW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Gabriel Rudy Cortez J-76501

Pelican Bay State Prison

P. O. Box 7500

Crescent City, Ca 95532

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

5/13/2010 5/13/2010 /s/

Case 5:09-cv-03021-EJD Document 15 Filed 05/13/10 Page 6 of 6