Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03759/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03759-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

The Court notes that the caption in the docket indicates that

Edward Alameida is still a named Defendant in his capacity as the

director of the California Department of Corrections (CDC). The Clerk

of the Court shall substitute Jeane Woodford as director of the CDC.

See Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (if a public

officer who is a party to a lawsuit ceases to hold office or resigns,

the officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD L. ASHKER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT HOREL, Warden, Pelican Bay

State Prison, JEANE WOODFORD, JOE

MAGRATH, RICHARD KIRKLAND, P.T.

SMITH, MARK CASTWELLAW, J. COX, M.J.

NIMROD, A.K. THACKER, DWIGHT W.

WINSLOW, DOCTOR WELTON, and D.

LANGLOIS,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-3759 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST TO SCREEN

SUPPLEMENTAL

COMPLAINT UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 1915A

On October 5, 2006, Plaintiff Todd L. Ashker, an inmate at

Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP), filed a motion to file a

supplemental complaint. (Docket # 59). Defendants opposed the

motion. (Docket # 92).1 On June 18, 2007, the Court granted

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 141 Filed 08/14/07 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 2

Plaintiff leave to file his supplemental complaint. (Docket 

# 113). Defendants now ask the Court to review two of the claims

in the supplemental complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915A states, in relevant part:

(a) Screening. -- The court shall review, before

docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as

practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil

action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a

government entity.

(b) Grounds for dismissal -- On review, the court shall

identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or

any portion of the complaint, if the complaint –

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted; . . .

28 U.S.C. § 1915A (a) and (b).

DISCUSSION

Defendants ask the Court to review the third and fourth causes

of action in Plaintiff’s supplemental complaint. The third cause

of action is for breach of contract arising out of Defendants’

alleged failure to allow Plaintiff to see an outside pain

management specialist pursuant to the settlement agreement in

Ashker, et al. v. California Department of Corrections, et al., 

C 97 1109 CW. Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction

over this claim based on the fact that in an October 19, 2004 Order

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and to

Extend Jurisdiction Over Settlement Agreement (Docket # 274 in Case

No. C 97-1109 CW), the Court declined to extend its jurisdiction

over the settlement agreement for another year. The Court

explained, “In reaching this conclusion, the Court considers that

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 141 Filed 08/14/07 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 3

Defendants have been complying with the terms of the Settlement

Agreement and that the Settlement Agreement required the Court to

retain jurisdiction over it for one year and the Court now has

retained jurisdiction over it for over two years.” October 19,

2004 Order at 5. 

Defendants are correct that the Court’s direct jurisdiction

over the settlement agreement ended on October 19, 2004 when the

Court declined to extend its jurisdiction over the settlement

agreement for another year. Plaintiff’s third cause of action is

now an ordinary state law claim for breach of contract and

Plaintiff could bring this claim in state court. However, because

the Court exercises original jurisdiction over this complaint

pursuant to Plaintiff’s federal claims, in the interests of

judicial economy, the Court uses its discretion to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s breach of contract

claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action is a state law claim for

tortious interference with a contract based upon Defendants’

alleged failure to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement. 

Defendants argue that this claim must be dismissed on the ground

that California recognizes a cause of action for tortious

interference with a contract when the defendant is not a party to

the contract. Defendants argue that they, as employees at PBSP,

are parties to the settlement agreement and therefore the claim

must fail. 

The tort of interference with a contract lies against noncontracting parties who interfere with the performance of a

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 141 Filed 08/14/07 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 4

contract. Shoemaker v. Myers, 52 Cal. 3d 1, 24 (1990); Woods v.

Fox Broadcasting Sub., Inc., 129 Cal. App. 4th 344, 351 (2005);

Dryden v Tri-Valley Growers, 65 Cal. App. 3d 990, 998 (1977)

(citing many California cases for same proposition). “[I]f an

action is brought for interference with contractual relationship by

one party to a contract against another who is also a party to that

same contract, the grievance of the plaintiff is, in essence,

breach of contract . . . to allow the plaintiff to sue under the

tort theory of wrongful interference with contractual rights would

not only be superfluous, but also would enable him to recover tort

damages . . . to which he is not entitled under California law.” 

Id. at 999. Agents of the employer who are vested with the power

to act for the employer stand in the place of the employer; because

the employer, the other party to the contract, cannot act except

through its agents. Shoemaker, 52 Cal. 3d at 24. “Thus, there is

no viable ‘inducement of breach of contract’ . . . that is

distinguishable from a cause of action for breach of contract.” 

Id. 

Therefore, Defendants, as employees of PBSP, cannot be held

liable for tortious interference with Plaintiff’s settlement

contract; Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action is not cognizable.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ request to review two causes of action in

Plaintiff’s supplemental complaint is granted. The third cause of

action for breach of contract is cognizable and the Court exercises

supplemental jurisdiction over it. The fourth cause of action for

interference with Plaintiff’s settlement contract is not cognizable 

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 141 Filed 08/14/07 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 5

and is dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

8/14/07

Dated 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 141 Filed 08/14/07 Page 5 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 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASHKER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEIDA ET AL et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-03759 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 August 14, 2007, 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.

Brendan Kenny

J. Randall Andrada

Andrada & Associates

180 Grand Avenue

Suite 925

Oakland, CA 94612

Todd A. Ashker

#C58191

Pelican Bay State Prison

Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532

Dated: August 14, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 141 Filed 08/14/07 Page 6 of 6