Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00155/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00155-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM SOTO, No. CIV S-07-0155-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1), filed on January

24, 2007.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

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

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

Case 2:07-cv-00155-GEB-CMK Document 6 Filed 01/30/07 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

2

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are

satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds

upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which

support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it

is impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are

vague and conclusory.

Plaintiff names as defendants the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, the California Board of Prison Terms, and McGeorge School of Law. Plaintiff

claims that his Fourteenth Amendment rights are being violated because counsel appointed to

represent parolees under a settlement agreement entered in Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, CIV S94-0671-LKK-GGH, are students at McGeorge School of Law and not licensed attorneys. 

In Valdivia, the district court held that California’s parole revocation system

violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by “allowing a delay of up to

forty-five days or more before providing the parolee an opportunity to be heard regarding the

reliability of the probable cause determination.” 206 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 1078 (E.D. Cal. 2002). 

The plaintiffs in Valdivia are a class of: (1) parolees in custody as alleged parole violators, and

who are awaiting revocation of their state parole; (2) parolees in custody, having been found in

violation of parole and sentenced to prison custody; and (3) parolees who are at large. With

respect to the provisions for appointment of counsel, the settlement agreement references

“counsel,” whereas the attached Remedial Plan Policy Outline references “attorney.” 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00155-GEB-CMK Document 6 Filed 01/30/07 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

3

In Jacobson v. Schwarzenegger, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (C.D. Cal. 2004),

Magistrate Judge McMahon in the Central District commented on the appointment of counsel

provisions in the Valdivia settlement. In particular, Judge McMahon set out the following

history:

On June 28, 2004, Judge Karlton held a hearing [in Valdivia]

concerning a possible delay in implementing the attorney appointment

provisions of the Stipulated Order. On July 7, 2004, Judge Karlton issued

a Joint Stipulation and Order indicating that: (1) the delay initially had

been caused by the defendants’ inability to obtain approval for a contract

with the McGeorge School of Law Institute for Administrative Justice

(“IAJ”) to operate the panel of attorneys who would be appointed to

represent persons accused of parole violations; (2) the defendants

represented to the court and counsel that the contract had been executed

and that the IAJ had made substantial progress in developing policies and

procedures; and (3) the IAJ had assured the defendants and the plaintiffs’

counsel that all deadlines in the Stipulated Order . . . would be met. 

Jacobson, 357 F. Supp. 2d at 1208.

Thus, it is clear that the settlement in Valdivia contemplated the involvement of McGeorge

School of Law in the process of appointing counsel to parolees. It is also clear that the scope of

McGeorge School of Law’s involvement is governed by a contract with state agencies. 

By reference to the Fourteenth Amendment, it appears that plaintiff is asserting

that his right to due process is being violated by the appointment of certified law students instead

of attorneys licensed by the state bar. In California, the practice of law by certified law students

is permitted under California Rule of Court 983.2. Participating law students must have been

certified by the California State Bar. With respect to activities permitted by certified law

students, the rule allows for appearances before any public agency, such as the Board of Prison

Terms. In addition, the rule requires all activities to be supervised by a licensed attorney. 

The gravamen of plaintiff’s claim is that due process requires that he be appointed

a licensed attorney instead of a certified law student. The court notes initially that plaintiff does

not specifically allege that he is entitled to appointment of counsel under the Valdivia settlement

or that, if he is, that a licensed attorney was not in fact appointed to represent him. In any event,

Case 2:07-cv-00155-GEB-CMK Document 6 Filed 01/30/07 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

4

plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a due process claim. Specifically, because the applicable

California Rule of Court requires that certified law students be supervised at every step of the

way by a licensed attorney, assuming that plaintiff is entitled to counsel and that a certified law

student was appointed, he is necessarily being represented by a licensed attorney via supervision

of the certified law student.

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed and that the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment and close this file.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 26, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00155-GEB-CMK Document 6 Filed 01/30/07 Page 4 of 4