Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03838/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03838-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILES O. BONTY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

G. A. NEOTTI, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 09-04358 CW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff Miles O. Bonty, a state prisoner incarcerated at

Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), has filed a pro se civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed

an amended complaint. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis has been granted. 

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claim

are alleged to have occurred at SVSP, which is located in this

judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff names the following SVSP

officials as Defendants: Chief Deputy Warden G. A. Neotti and

Correctional Lieutenant J. Stevenson. He also names California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Chief of the Inmate

Appeals Branch N. Grannis. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and

monetary damages.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

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.

Case 5:09-cv-03838-LHK Document 7 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 9
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

2

§ 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. Id.

§ 1915A(b) (1), (2). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must

allege two essential 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). Moreover, pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988).

II. Legal Claims

A. Due Process Claim

An inmate in California is entitled to due process before

being disciplined when the discipline imposed will inevitably

affect the duration of his sentence or causes an "atypical and

significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary

incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. at 484, 484,

487 (1995). The process due in such a prison disciplinary

proceeding includes written notice, time to prepare for the

hearing, a written statement of decision, allowance of witnesses

and documentary evidence when not unduly hazardous, and aid to the

accused where the inmate is illiterate or the issues are complex. 

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 564-7. Due process also requires

that there be "some evidence" to support the disciplinary decision. 

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 at 454. The Due Process

Case 5:09-cv-03838-LHK Document 7 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 9
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

Clause only requires that prisoners be afforded those procedures

mandated by Wolff and its progeny; it does not require that a

prison comply with its own, more generous procedures. See Walker

v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1419-20 (9th Cir. 1994).

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied

due process in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings

while he was housed at SVSP. On January 15, 2009, he was issued a

CDC-115 rule violation report for "Refusal to Obey Orders." 

Defendant Stevenson was assigned as the hearing officer for the

CDC-115. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Stevenson refused to

allow him to present certain witnesses at his disciplinary hearing. 

Liberally construed, the allegations of the amended complaint state

a § 1983 claim against Defendant Stevenson for violating

Plaintiff's right to due process. 

B. Claim Relating to Grievance Process

Plaintiff claims that Defendants Neotti and Grannis denied his

602 inmate appeal (relating to his due process claim) at the second

level and Director's level, respectively. Plaintiff's amended

complaint does not, however, state a claim for relief against

Defendants Neotti and Grannis, who denied Plaintiff's appeal upon

finding no violation of his due process rights.

Any claim based on the simple failure to grant his

administrative appeals or process them properly is not cognizable

in a § 1983 action because there is no constitutional right to a

prison administrative appeal or grievance system for California

inmates. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988);

Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996). The

State of California has not created a protected interest in an

Case 5:09-cv-03838-LHK Document 7 Filed 05/07/10 Page 3 of 9
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

administrative appeal system in prison. California Code of

Regulations, title 15 sections 1073 and 3084 et seq. grant

prisoners in the county jails and state prisons a purely procedural

right: the right to have a prison appeal. The regulations simply

require the establishment of a procedural structure for reviewing

prisoner complaints and set forth no substantive standards;

instead, they provide for flexible appeal time limits, see Cal.

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6, and, at most, that "no reprisal shall

be taken against an inmate or parolee for filing an appeal," id.

§ 3084.1(d). A provision that merely provides procedural

requirements, even if mandatory, cannot form the basis of a

constitutionally cognizable liberty interest. See Smith v. Noonan,

992 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Antonelli, 81 F.3d at

1430 (prison grievance procedure is procedural right that does not

give rise to protected liberty interest requiring procedural

protections of Due Process Clause). 

Plaintiff had no federal constitutional right to a properly

functioning appeal system. An incorrect decision on an

administrative appeal does not amount to a due process violation. 

Therefore, Plaintiff's claim against Defendants Neotti and Grannis

concerning the handling of his appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable due process claim

against Defendant Stevenson.

2. Plaintiff's claim against Defendants Neotti and Grannis

concerning the handling of his appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Case 5:09-cv-03838-LHK Document 7 Filed 05/07/10 Page 4 of 9
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

3. The Clerk shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for

Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service

of Summons, a copy of the amended complaint and all attachments

thereto (docket no. 5) and a copy of this Order to SVSP

Correctional Lieutenant J. Stevenson. The Clerk shall also mail a

copy of the amended complaint and a copy of this Order to the State

Attorney General's Office in San Francisco. The Clerk shall mail a

copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 

4. Defendant is cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure requires Defendant to cooperate in saving

unnecessary costs of service of the summons and amended complaint. 

Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendant, after being notified of this

action and asked by the Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive

service of the summons, fails to do so, Defendant will be required

to bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for

their failure to sign and return the waiver form. If service is

waived, this action will proceed as if Defendant had been served on

the date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule

12(a)(1)(B), Defendant will not be required to serve and file an

answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the request

for waiver was sent. (This allows a longer time to respond than

would be required if formal service of summons is necessary.) 

Defendant is asked to read the statement set forth at the foot of

the waiver form that more completely describes the duties of the

parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons. If

service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before

Defendant has been personally served, the Answer shall be due sixty

(60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or

Case 5:09-cv-03838-LHK Document 7 Filed 05/07/10 Page 5 of 9
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

twenty (20) days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever

is later. 

5. Defendant shall answer the amended complaint in

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The

following briefing schedule shall govern dispositive motions in

this action:

a. No later than ninety (90) days from the date

Defendant's answer is due, Defendant shall file a motion for

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be

supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in

all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. If Defendant

is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary

judgment, Defendant shall so inform the Court prior to the date the

summary judgment motion is due. All papers filed with the Court

shall be promptly served on Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion

shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendant no later than

sixty (60) days after the date on which Defendant's motion is

filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should

be given to pro se plaintiffs facing a summary judgment motion:

The defendant has made a motion for summary 

judgment by which they seek to have your case dismissed. 

A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end

your case. 

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to

oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary

judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue

of material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute

about any fact that would affect the result of your case,

the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. 

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary

judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or

Case 5:09-cv-03838-LHK Document 7 Filed 05/07/10 Page 6 of 9
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

other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what

your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific

facts in declarations, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided

in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the

defendant's declarations and documents and show that

there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If

you do not submit your own evidence in opposition,

summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against

you. If summary judgment is granted [in favor of the

defendants], your case will be dismissed and there will

be no trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en

banc).

Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)

(party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence

showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element

of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that because he bears the

burden of proving his allegations in this case, he must be prepared

to produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files

his opposition to Defendant's dispositive motion. Such evidence

may include sworn declarations from himself and other witnesses to

the incident, and copies of documents authenticated by sworn

declaration. Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary judgment

simply by repeating the allegations of his amended complaint.

c. If Defendant wishes to file a reply brief, Defendant

shall do so no later than thirty (30) days after the date

Plaintiff's opposition is filed.

d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date

the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion

unless the Court so orders at a later date.

6. Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with

Case 5:09-cv-03838-LHK Document 7 Filed 05/07/10 Page 7 of 9
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

8

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Leave of the Court pursuant

to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendant to depose Plaintiff

and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

7. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be

served on Defendant, or Defendant's counsel once counsel has been

designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendant or

Defendant's counsel.

8. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. 

Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address and

must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion.

9. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable

extensions will be granted. Any motion for an extension of time

must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the deadline

sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 5/7/2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-03838-LHK Document 7 Filed 05/07/10 Page 8 of 9
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

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILES O BONTY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

G.A. NEOTTI et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-03838 CW 

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 May 7, 2010, 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.

Miles O. Bonty D-12821

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960

Dated: May 7, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

Case 5:09-cv-03838-LHK Document 7 Filed 05/07/10 Page 9 of 9