Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01296/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01296-2/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

GEORGE D. ROUNDS, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1296 RRB EBB P

vs.

MICHAEL PORTER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel prosecuting this civil rights action in forma

pampers. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This proceeding was referred to this court

by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On August 30, 2006, the court

dismissed plaintiff’s initial complaint with leave to amend. On October 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a

first amended complaint.

 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and, for the

following reasons, finds it also fails to state a claim for relief.

Plaintiff claims that defendants conspired to violate his civil rights by ensuring the

enactment of California’s regulatory scheme governing the determination of whether those

convicted of second degree murder are suitable for parole. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 2400,

et seq. He asserts that the factors used to determine whether a prisoner should be released to

Case 2:06-cv-01296-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 08/17/07 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

parole, see Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2402, violate the Equal Protection and the Due Process

clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. He does not challenge them as applied to him in any

particular parole consideration hearing. Rather, he asserts that they are facially discriminatory

against prisoners, such as himself, who have been sentenced to a term of 15 years to life in

prison. He also asserts that they are facially arbitrary in that they do not provide criteria

adequate to ensure that persons suitable for parole actually are released. 

Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code creates a cause of action against

persons who deprive any individual of a right secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the

United States while acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). 

To state a claim for conspiracy, plaintiff must allege specific facts showing two or more persons

intended to accomplish an unlawful objective of causing plaintiff harm and took some concerted

action in furtherance thereof. Kari-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621 

(9th Cir. 1988); Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1999); Burns v. County

of King, 883 F.2d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 1989) (conclusory allegations of conspiracy insufficient to

state a valid § 1983 claim). Equal protection is a command that all persons similarly situated

should be treated alike. City of Cleburne, Tex. v . Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439

(1985). To state a claim for the violation of equal protection, a plaintiff must allege defendant

intentionally discriminated against him “based upon membership in a protected class.” Barren v.

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (1998). Discrimination based on characteristics other than

race, alienage, national origin and sex must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. 

City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985). “[T]he touchstone

of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government.” County of

Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845 (1998), quoting Wolf v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558

(1974). For California parole officials to deny a prisoner release to parole, there must be

evidence that “the prisoner will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from

prison.” Cal. Pen. Code § 3041(b); Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 15, § 2402(a). This determination is

Case 2:06-cv-01296-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 08/17/07 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

made based on an individualized examination of “circumstances tending to show unsuitability”

and “circumstances tending to show suitability,” as set forth in Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2402. 

Neither prisoners nor any subset thereof, such as those convicted of murder on or after

November 8, 1978, and sentenced to serve 15 years to life in prison, is a suspect class for

purposes of an elevated level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Rather, the review

here is under a rational basis test. It is plaintiff’s burden to allege that the regulations are not

rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Plaintiff has neither alleged nor shown that the

regulation he challenges fail to satisfy that deferential standard of review. The circumstances set

out in Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2402(c)-(d) all relate to the likelihood that once released to

parole, the prisoner will conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Identical criteria

apply to all other prisoners sentenced to life in prison. See Cal. Code Regs. tit 15, § 2281(c)-(d). 

Somewhat less stringent criteria apply to those sentenced to serve than less than life in prison. 

See Id., at § 2316. Plaintiff’s suitability for parole is governed by the regulation applicable to

those convicted of murder and sentenced to a life term. See Id., at § 2402. There is a legitimate

state interest in providing parole only to those likely to comply with the terms and conditions

thereof. Prisoners sentenced to serve life terms have committed more serious crimes than those

sentenced to lesser terms. The length of a sentence reasonably relates to the severity of the

commitment offense. Plaintiff does not allege any basis for finding that the factors to be

considered as enumerated in § 2402 are not reliable predictors of whether a person convicted of

murder and sentenced to a life term will pose a danger to society if released. Thus, plaintiff has

no basis to proceed on a claim that the distinction drawn between prisoners sentenced to life for

a murder conviction, prisoners serving life for other crimes and prisoners serving lesser terms for

less severe crimes fails to satisfy rational basis scrutiny. Plaintiff’s due process claim must fail

for the same reasons. There is nothing inherently or facially arbitrary about the factors intended

to guide the parole authority’s exercise of discretion under these regulations.

////

Case 2:06-cv-01296-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 08/17/07 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

Finally, the complaint is insufficient for the additional reason that plaintiff seeks to

proceed on a conspiracy theory. However, he makes no factual allegations that any defendants

agreed to promulgate the challenged regulations in order to achieve an unlawful purpose.

For all these reasons, the court finds that plaintiff fails to state a claim and the complaint

must be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128

(9th Cir. 2000) (indigent prisoner proceeding without counsel must be given leave to file

amended complaint unless the court can rule out any possibility that the plaintiff could state a

claim).

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 twenty days

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 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. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: August 15, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01296-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 08/17/07 Page 4 of 4