Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD ASHKER,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

SCOTT KERNAN; JEFFREY

BEARD; GEORGE GIURBINO;

SUSAN HUBBARD; KELLY

HARRINGTON; KATHLEEN

ALLISON; J. MCLAUGHLIN; M.

RUFF; C. PARIS; J. PRELIP; D.

ROTHCHILD; J. ROBERTSON; B.

MOAK; C.E. DUCART; C.

PFEIFFER; A. ALAFA; MARTINEZ;

HIGHTOWER; MANUAL ORTIZ;

HAMMER; SPEIDEL; STEBBINS;

VARGAS; M. RUSSELL; J. FALLIS;

J. FRISK; W. BLACK; S. ALFARO;

C. GIPSON; R. DIAZ,

Defendants. /

No. C 18-6350 WHA (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

MOTION TO DISMISS; SEVERING

AND TRANSFERRING CERTAIN

CLAIMS TO THE EASTERN

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA;

ORDERING SERVICE OF

ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS; 

GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME;

DENYING APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Dkt. Nos. 23, 28)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Based upon a review of the Complaint under Section 1915A, certain claims were dismissed. 

Thereafter, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF No. 33). Defendants move

to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has filed an

opposition, and defendants filed a reply brief. For the reasons discussed below, defendants’

motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART, certain claims are severed and transferred to the

Eastern District of California, certain other claims are dismissed, and the remaining defendants

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 37 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 10
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

are granted an extension of time to file their summary judgment motion. 

STATEMENT

Plaintiff is the lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit Ashker v. Brown, No. C 09-5796

CW (N. D. Cal.), in which California inmates claimed that their assignment to an indeterminate

term in the Secured Housing Unit (“SHU”) at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) violated their

constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. On May 6, 2016, the clerk entered judgment in accordance with the Order

Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement, which awarded class members

declaratory and injunctive relief. In the instant lawsuit, plaintiff seeks money damages from

California prison officials for violating his constitutional rights and breaching the Ashker

settlement agreement when they detained him in the SHU at PBSP from September 10, 2014, to

February 11, 2016, and in the Administrative Segregation Unit (“ASU”) at Kern Valley State

Prison (“KVSP”) from May 1, 2017, to the present. 

ANALYSIS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Failure to state a claim is a grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Dismissal for failure to state a claim is a ruling on a question of law. 

Parks School of Business, Inc., v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1483 (9th Cir. 1995). "The issue is

not whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to

support his claim." Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations and internal

quotations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to

relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 37 Filed 03/11/21 Page 2 of 10
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

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is

plausible on its face.” Id. at 1986-87. A motion to dismiss should be granted if the complaint

does not proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570;

see, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1952 (2009). 

Review is limited to the contents of the complaint, Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18

F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994), including documents physically attached to the complaint or

documents the complaint necessarily relies on and whose authenticity is not contested. Lee v.

County of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). In addition, the court may take

judicial notice of facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute. Id. at 688 (discussing Fed. R.

Evid. 201(b)). Allegations of fact in the complaint must be taken as true and construed in the

light most favorable to the non-moving party. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d

979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). The court need not, however, “accept as true allegations that are

merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Ibid.

A pro se pleading must be liberally construed, and "however inartfully pleaded, must be

held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Twombly, 550 U.S.

at 570 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Allegations of fact in the

complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving

party. Symington, 51 F.3d at 1484. 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Defendants argue that the claims arising from plaintiff’s time in the ASU at KVSP are

not properly joined to the claims arising from his time in the SHU at PBSP because they are

against involve different defendants, facts, locations, and time periods. Defendants also argue

that claims against defendants Frisk and Beard should be dismissed for failure to state a

cognizable for a relief, and that defendants Martinez and Molina should be dismissed because

they were not included in the FAC. Finally, defendants seek screening of the claims against

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 37 Filed 03/11/21 Page 3 of 10
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

three new defendants added to the FAC, Alfaro, Gipson and Diaz. 

A. UNDISPUTED DISMISSAL

Plaintiff agrees that the claims against Frisk should be dismissed as time-barred. He

also does not dispute that the claims against Martinez and Molina should be dismissed because

there are no claims or allegations against them in the FAC. Accordingly, the claims against

these defendants will be dismissed. 

B. JOINDER

Defendants argue that plaintiff may not join the claims against KVSP officials arising

from events that occurred at KVSP in the same lawsuit as the claims arising from events at

PBSP. Claims against multiple defendants may be joined in one action only if "if any right to

relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising

out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and any

question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action." Fed. R. Civ. P.

20(a)(2). "A buckshot complaint that would be rejected if filed by a free person – say, a suit

complaining that A defrauded plaintiff, B defamed him, C punched him, D failed to pay a debt,

and E infringed his copyright, all in different transactions – should be rejected if filed by a

prisoner." George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff’s claims relating to his time at PBSP are based upon alleged events occurring

there between September 2014 and February 2016 as follows. He claims that in four housing

decisions at PBSP — dated September 10, 2014, September 17, 2015, October 8, 2015, and

January 14, 2016 — officials used false confidential information as a pretext to keep him in

segregated housing three times and once to move him to general population restricted status in

the fourth decision. He alleges that PBSP officials checked on him every thirty minutes (as part

of a court-mandated suicide watch program), which interfered with his sleep and concentration.

Plaintiff also brings claims arising from events that occurred at KVSP from May 2017 to

the present. He claims that KVSP officials retaliated against him in a variety of ways because

of his class-action lawsuit, Ashker v. Brown, No. C 09-5796 CW (N. D. Cal. 2009). He also

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 37 Filed 03/11/21 Page 4 of 10
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

claims that the suicide watch protocol at KVSP was more problematic than at PBSP because the

cells are more isolated. 

The KVSP claims do not arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of

transactions or occurrences” as the PBSP claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). The claims

plainly do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as they involve different locations,

at different times, and by different people. There were unique facts and officials involved in the

housing decisions and the suicide watch practices at PBSP that are distinct from the facts and

officials involved in the allegedly retaliatory acts and the suicide watch practices at KVSP. The

claims also do not arise from the same “series” of transactions or occurrences. There is no

allegation of a policy or a continuos sequence of events spanning the two prisons that would

suggest that the alleged violations at both places all were part of the same series of events. And

while one of plaintiff does challenge the way that guards carried out the suicide watch at both

places, which was by different people and in a different manner at each prison. Indeed, he

alleges that these practices at KVSP were different, and worse, than those at PBSP because of

the isolated nature of the KVSP cells. Because the KVSP claims and the PBSP claims do not

arise from the same transactions or occurrences, or the same series of transactions or

occurrences, they may not be joined into a single action under Rule 20.

Plaintiff argues that all of his claims concern the same series of transactions or

occurrences because both his PBSP claims and his KVSP claims are similar to claims that he

made in his prior class action. Any similarity between claims raised here and those from his

prior lawsuit does not mean that all the claims raised here arose from a “series” of the same

transactions or occurrences under Rule 20. Plaintiff’s prior lawsuit has been ruled unrelated to

the present action, however (ECF No. 24). The housing decisions that gave rise to his PBSP

claims are not part of the same “series” of transactions or occurrences as the retaliatory acts that

allegedly took place at KVSP and underlie his KVSP claims. 

Plaintiff’s claims against the KVSP officials do not concern or arise “out of the same

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” as his other claims, and they

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 37 Filed 03/11/21 Page 5 of 10
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

are therefore not properly joined in this lawsuit under Rule 20. Due to the possibility of

prejudice from dismissing his claims against KVSP officials, those claims will instead be

severed from this case and transferred to the Eastern District of California, the proper venue for

such claims. 

C. CLAIMS AGAINST BEARD

Defendants argue that the claims against Beard, the former Secretary of the CDCR,

should be dismissed because he was not involved in violating plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff asserts

that Beard chose the protocol for suicide-watch from several options offered in the courtordered settlement of plaintiff’s prior lawsuit. Plaintiff claims that officials violated his rights

when they conducted suicide-watch by loudly banging on his cell door every thirty minutes,

which disrupted his sleep. 

Although Beard did not implement the protocol himself, and it is not clear that he took

part in deciding how officers would check on inmates. Plaintiff alleges, however, that he

notified Beard of the sleep disruption and that Beard took no action. In addition, it is possible

that the evidence could show that the protocol itself proximately and inevitably led to officers

implementing it in a manner that violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Consequently,

plaintiff’s allegations, when liberally construed in his favor, state a cognizable claim against

Beard. 

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. They did

not raise that argument until the reply brief, however, which means that plaintiff has not had an

opportunity to address it. The qualified immunity argument may be raised in Defendants’

summary judgment papers, ordered below. 

D. NEW DEFENDANTS

When liberally construed, the allegations in the FAC against the newly-named

defendants S. Alfaro, C. Gipson, and R. Diaz are cognizable. Service will be ordered upon

them, below. 

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 37 Filed 03/11/21 Page 6 of 10
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

 CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, 

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART. The claims against

defendants Martinez, Molina, and J. Frisk are DISMISSED.

2. The claims against Warden C. Pfeiffer, Sgt. A. Alafa, Officer Hightower,

Officer Manual Ortiz, Capt. Hammer, Lt. Speidel, and Associate Warden Stebbins at

Kern Valley State Prison are SEVERED and TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California. The clerk shall send a copy of the First Amended

Complaint and a copy of this Order to the Eastern District, where a new case will be opened for

purposes of adjudicating the claims against these defendants.

3. The following defendants shall be served: S. Alfaro, C. Gipson, and R. Diaz at

Pelican Bay State Prison.

Service on the listed defendant(s) shall proceed under the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners

in CDCR custody. In accordance with the program, the clerk is directed to serve on CDCR via

email the following documents: the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33), this Order, a

CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form, and a summons. The clerk also shall serve a copy of

this order on the plaintiff.

No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR shall

provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which

defendant(s) listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for service

by the United States Marshal Service (USMS) and which defendant(s) decline to waive service

or could not be reached. CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service

Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the

court a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are waiving service. 

Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the clerk shall prepare for each

defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 37 Filed 03/11/21 Page 7 of 10
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

USM-205 Form. The clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-205 forms and

copies of this order, the summons and the operative complaint for service upon each defendant

who has not waived service. The clerk also shall provide to the USMS a copy of the CDCR

Report of E-Service Waiver.

4. The remaining defendants shall file an answer in accordance with the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. 

5. In order to expedite the resolution of this case:

a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, the remaining

defendants, including those who have been ordered served above, shall file a motion for

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they 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

the plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the

court and served upon defendants no later than 28 days from the date of service of the motion. 

Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is provided to

him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and

Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date of

service of the opposition. 

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. 

e. Along with his motion, defendants shall file proof that they served plaintiff

the Rand warning at the same time they served him with their motion. Failure to do so will

result in the summary dismissal of their motion. 

//

//

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 37 Filed 03/11/21 Page 8 of 10
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

6. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’

motion to dismiss is Granted. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is Denied because

there are no extraordinary circumstances precluding plaintiff from representing himself; should

that change, counsel may be appointed sua sponte.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March , 2021. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 37 Filed 03/11/21 Page 9 of 10
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

10

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking 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 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 [current Rule 56(c)], 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, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 37 Filed 03/11/21 Page 10 of 10