Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05796/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05796-0/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

TODD ASHKER and DANNY TROXELL,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. 09-05796 CW

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFFS’

REQUESTS FOR

RECONSIDERATION

AND FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

On December 9, 2009, Plaintiffs Todd Ashker and Danny Troxell,

inmates in the Secured Housing Unit (SHU) at Pelican Bay State

Prison (PBSP), filed a complaint alleging various civil rights

violations committed by state Defendants. On February 16, 2010,

the Court issued an Order Screening Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A in which it dismissed certain claims without leave to amend

and other claims with leave to amend. On April 12, 2010,

Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to move for reconsideration of

portions of the February 16, 2010 Order dismissing certain claims

without leave to amend. Their request for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration is granted and is construed as their motion for

reconsideration. Because the complaint has not yet been served,

the Court will not call for a response from the named Defendants. 

Having considered all the papers filed by Plaintiffs, the Court

grants, in part, the motion for reconsideration. 

On April 14, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion for an extension

of time to file their First Amended Complaint (FAC). The Court

Case 4:09-cv-05796-CW Document 11 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 4
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

grants the motion for an extension of time to file the FAC.

DISCUSSION

I. Claims Regarding Parole Procedures

In the February 16, 2010 Order, the Court dismissed

Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims regarding parole procedures, and

did not grant leave to amend because these claims hd been

adjudicated in Plaintiffs’ previous case, C 05-3286 CW. In that

case, Mr. Troxell’s claims were dismissed for lack of exhaustion

and Mr. Ashker’s claims were dismissed on the ground that they

sought an earlier release date and therefore must be brought in a

habeas petition. However, as Plaintiffs point out, in case C 05-

3286 CW, the Court granted Mr. Ashker’s motion for reconsideration

based on his clarification that he was not seeking an earlier

release date, but rather prospective injunctive relief enjoining

the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) from using allegedly

unconstitutional guidelines at his next parole hearing. Also,

Plaintiffs correctly point out that in case C 05-3286 CW, the only

claim at issue was Mr. Ashker’s due process claim based on the

BPH’s August 7, 2003 hearing. 

Plaintiffs state that they are alleging claims in this

complaint based upon Mr. Troxell’s 2006 and 2009 hearings before

the BPH and Mr. Ashker’s 2008 hearing before the BPH that were not

before the Court in C 05-3286 CW. To the extent that Plaintiffs’

claims regarding parole denials have not been litigated in 

C 05-3286 CW and do not seek an earlier release date, they are

cognizable in this case. They are dismissed with leave to amend to

remedy the deficiencies indicated in the February 16, 2010 Order. 

Case 4:09-cv-05796-CW Document 11 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 4
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

See February 16, 2010 Order at 7-8.

II. Due Process Claims Based on Gang Validation Procedures

In the February 16, 2010 Order, the Court dismissed

Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims regarding gang validation, and

did not grant leave to amend because these claims had been

adjudicated in C 05-3286 CW. Plaintiffs point out that in 

C 05-3286 CW, at issue was Mr. Ashker’s due process claim based

upon the 2001 review of his status as a gang member and his 2002

and 2003 revalidations as a gang member. Plaintiffs state that

they are alleging claims in this complaint based upon their 2007

and 2008 gang status reviews and revalidations. Therefore, to the

extent that Plaintiffs’ claims regarding gang status reviews and

revalidations have not been litigated in C 05-3286 CW, they are

cognizable in this case. The Court grants leave to amend them to

remedy the deficiencies indicated in the February 16, 2010 Order. 

See February 16, 2010 Order at 7-8.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request

for an extension of time to file their FAC and their motion for

reconsideration. Plaintiffs’ FAC is due no later than forty-five

days from the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-05796-CW Document 11 Filed 05/28/10 Page 3 of 4
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD ASHKER et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-05796 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 28, 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.

Danny Troxell

Pelican Bay State Prison

B76578

P.O. Box 7500

D1-120

Crescent City, CA 95532

Todd Ashker C58191

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7500

D1-SHU

Crescent City, CA 95532

Dated: May 28, 2010

Richard W. Winking, Clerk

By: Ronnie Hersler, Administrative Law Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-05796-CW Document 11 Filed 05/28/10 Page 4 of 4