Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01875/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01875-11/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

DISTRICT OF ALASKA

TIMOTHYHOWARD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C. LANE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01875-RRB

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AT DOCKET 55

I. PENDING MOTION

At Docket 55 Defendants M. Harris and J. Martin filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment. Plaintiff Timothy Howard, a state prisoner appearing pro se, has opposed the

motion1 and Defendants have replied.2 This matter being ripe for decision, it is submitted for

decision on the moving and opposing papers without oral argument.

3

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate if, when viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party,there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving

1 Docket 57 (Memorandum), Docket 58 (Statement of Undisputed Facts).

2 Docket 59.

3 LR 230(l).

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 1

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 17
partyis entitled to judgmentinits favor as a matter of law.

4 Support and oppositionto a motion

for summary judgment is made by affidavit made on personal knowledge of the affiant,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, setting forth such facts as may be admissible in

evidence.5In response to a properly supported motion for summaryjudgment, the opposing

party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for

trial.

6 The issue of material fact required to be present to entitle a party to proceed to trial is

not required to be resolved conclusivelyinfavor of the partyasserting its existence; all that is

required is that sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factualdispute be shownto require

a juryorjudge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial. Inorder to show that

a genuine issue ofmaterialfactexists a nonmoving plaintiffmustintroduce probative evidence

that establishes the elements of the complaint.

7 Material facts are those that may affect the

outcome of the case.8 A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence

for a reasonable jury to return a verdict forthe non-moving party.

9

"Credibilitydeterminations,

the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury

4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en

banc); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 1989).

5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

6

Id.; Henderson v. City of Simi Valley, 305 F.3d 1052, 1055–56 (9th Cir. 2002).

7 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986).

8

Id.

9

Id.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 2

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 17
functions, not those of a judge, [when] he is ruling on a motionfor summaryjudgment."

10 The

evidence of the non-moving partyis to be believed and all justifiable inferences are drawn in

his favor.

11 The moving party has the burdenof showing there is no genuine issue of material

fact; therefore, he or she bears the burden of bothproductionand persuasion.

12 The moving

party, however, has no burden to negate or disprove matters on which the non-moving party

will have the burden of proof at trial. The moving party need only point out to the Court that

there is anabsence ofevidence to supportthe non-moving party's case.13 There is no genuine

issue of fact if, on the record takenas a whole, a rational trier of fact could not find in favor of

the party opposing the motion.

14

In general, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court may not weigh the

evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses.15Instead, it generally accepts as true

statements made under oath.

16 However, this rule does not apply to conclusory statements

unsupported by underlying facts,17 nor may the court draw unreasonable inferences from the

10

Id. at 255.

11

Id.

12 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–323 (1986).

13 Sluimer v. Verity, Inc., 606 F.3d 584, 586 (9th Cir. 2010); see Celotex, 477 U.S.

at 325.

14 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).

15 Dominguez-Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dept., 424 F.3d 1027, 1036 (9thCir. 2005).

16 Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005).

17 Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382, 387 (9th Cir. 1990).

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 3

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 3 of 17
evidence.18

“To survive summaryjudgment, a plaintiff must set forthnon-speculative facts, not

sweeping conclusory statements.”

19

III. BACKGROUND/ISSUES PRESENTED

Howard’s complaint arises out of his validation as a member of the Black Guerilla

Familygang while held inAdministrative Segregation(“Ad-Seg”) at the California Substance

Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”). Howard is presently incarcerated at the Pelican Bay

State Prison.

In his Amended Complaint Howard raised several claims. In screening this Court

dismissed all claims except his First Amendment claim as against Defendants M. Harris, J.

Martin, and S. Furlong.20InhisFirstAmendmentclaimHoward alleges that Defendants Harris

and Martin stated theywould file paperwork against him, ostensibly in retaliation for Howard

having filed inmate appeals.As against Defendants Harris and Furlong, Howard alleges that

they created false documentation to validate him as a member of the Black Guerilla Family

(“BGF”) gang. Defendants Harris and Martinanswered.21 The Court dismissed the actionas

18 See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001);

McLaughlin v. Liu, 849 F.2d 1205, 1207–1209 (9th Cir. 1988).

19 Calfasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th

Cir. 2011).

20 Docket 8.

21 Docket 23.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 4

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 4 of 17
against Defendant S. Furlong on the basis that the Screening Order as against Furlong had

been improvidently entered in error.

22

In their motion Defendants contend that there is no evidence to support Plaintiff’s

allegations that Defendants, or either of them: (1) Took any adverse action against Plaintiff;

(2) Plaintiff’s frivolous inmate grievance was not protected conduct; (3) There is no causal

connectionbetweenDefendant’s allegedlyadverse actionand anyprotected conduct; and (4)

Defendants had a legitimate penological interest indrafting the memoranda used invalidating

Plaintiff’s gang validation. Defendants further contend that they are entitled to qualified

immunity.

Inhis oppositionPlaintiff contends that:(1) Defendants took anadverse actionagainst

him; (2) The grievance was not frivolous and his conduct was protected; (3) A causal

connection exists between Defendants’ adverse action and the protected conduct; and

(4) Defendants had no legitimate penological interest in drafting the memoranda used in

validating Plaintiff as a gang member. Plaintiff also argues that: (1) Defendants violated his

due process rights by interviewing him in connection with an assault on a staff member;

(2) Retaliated against him for submitting internal grievances against Defendants;

(3) Deliberately falsified documents used in validating him as a member of BGF gang; and

(4) Permitted the use of outdated documents to be used in the gang validation process.

For the most part the relevant facts in this case are undisputed.

22 Docket 34.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 5

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 5 of 17
1. On August 21, 2009, while incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison (“CSP”),

Howard attempted to murder a correctional officer.

23 Subsequently, Howard was transferred

to CSATF where the incidents giving rising to this action occurred.

2. On or about February 2, 2010, an assault ona correctional officer occurred at

Corcoran.

3. On or about February 2 and February 3, 2010, Howard was interviewed

concerning the February2 assault by two, or more, correctional officers, not the Defendants.

4. On or about March 10, 2010, Howard was interviewed by Defendants Harris

and Martin concerning the February 2, 2010, assault.

24

5. Prior to the interview, Howard, in the presence of Defendants, added their

names to a grievance he intended to file, and handed a copy to one of the Defendants. One

of the Defendants tore up the appeal and disposed of it in a trash receptacle. Howard,

however had another copy. Moreover, in his deposition, Howard testified that he did not

submit that grievance; instead he submitted a new grievance on March 17, 2010.25

6. Prior to interviewing Howard, Harris searched property located in the Ad-Seg

propertyroom that was provided to him bythe property room officer as belonging to Howard.

23 The record reflects that Howard was not only convicted of that crime, but in his

deposition, admitted it. Howard Deposition, September 10, 2014, pp. 14–15, 22.

24 Although there may be a dispute as to the exact date Howard was interviewed, the

fact that he was interviewed is undisputed. Forthe purposes of ruling on the pending motion,

the Court accepts the date asserted by Howard, the non-moving party.

25 Howard Deposition, pp. 41–42.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 6

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 6 of 17
Among the items found in that property were several articles written by George Jacksonand

hand-drawn gang symbols.26

7. In his CDC 126-B dated March 23, 2010, Martin stated:

OnFriday, March 19, 2010, while assigned to the Investigative Services. Unit

(ISU) at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison

(CSATF/SP) at Corcoran; I assisted in an interview with Inmate Howard,

Timothy, J95136 Aka "Hover Deuce", in reference to his current gang status.

During the interview, Howard admitted the reason he utilized the date of

August 21 to assault the cop next door (referring to the California State Prison

Corcoran) was because it was the anniversaryof the incident involving George

Jackson on August 21, 1971.

Howard further explained that George Jacksonmurdered (1) one, correctional

staff member at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF), but that he murdered

(3) three, correctional employees during his escape attempt at San Quentin

State Prison.

George Jackson is held inone of the highest esteemed positions by the Black

Guerrilla Family(BGF). George Jackson, thoughnever validated as a member

of the BGF, is attributed as being the founder of the BGF, during his

incarceration at San Quentin tn the 1960's. On Friday, August 21, 2009,

Howard committed the act of"Batteryona Peace Officer/Attempted Homicide

with a Weapon" (Refer to incident log#COR-04A-09-08-0435a1). By

conducting the assault, Howard is showing his good standing allegiance and

loyalty to the BGF.

Per California Code of Regulations (CCR),Title 151 section3378 (c)(8)(l), this

document should be considered as one source (self admission) towards the

validation of Inmate Howard as an active member/associate of the BGF.

Inmate Howard's behavior should be closely monitored and documented

whenever gang activity and/or association is present. If and when additional

26 Declarationof M. Harris inSupport of Motionfor Summary Judgment, Docket 55-4.

The Court notes that although Howard “disputes”this statement, his disagreement is that the

property was that of another inmate, not his. Notably, Howard does not state any facts, let

alone offer any evidence, that refutes the veracity of the statement itself.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 7

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 7 of 17
information becomes available Inmate Howard's gang status should be reevaluated.27

8. In his CDC 128-B dated March 23, 2010, Harris stated:

On Friday, March 19, 2010, while assigned to the Investigative Services Unit

(ISU) at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison

(CSATF/SP) at Corcoran; I conducted a property search of the legal/personal

paperwork of Inmate HOWARD, Timothy J95136 Aka "Hoover Deuce", in

reference to his current gang status. During the search I discovered a handdrawn picture of a dragon. The aforementioned picture is indicative of

membership/associationto the prisongang knownas the Black Guerilla Family

(BGF).

Withinthe BGFprisongang, the dragon symbol gained significance throughthe

BGF'S founder, George Jackson,referencing the "dragon" within his writing's

and citing the dragon during his breakout attempt from San Quentin State

Prison on August 21, 1971. The BGF use the dragon to signify membership

gained additional importance through Jeffrey Gaulden, 809053, Aka “Joka”

(Swahili for dragon), previous Supreme Commander of the BGF, who

established the ranking structure and constitutionforthe BGF. The image of a

dragon is synonymous with the BGF and is a recognized source item within

CDCR for membership/association with the BGF prison gang.

By maintaining this symbol, HOWARD is showing his allegiance and

membership with the BGF.

[Image of Dragon omitted.]

Per California Code ofRegulations (CCR),Title 15, section3378 (c)(8)(B), this

document should be considered as one source (symbols) towards the

27 Docket 58, p. 94 (Exhibit BB). The Court also notes that there is a Confidential

Memorandum dated April 6, 2010, authored by Harris, in which he essentially restates the

information contained in the CDC 128-B. See Docket 58, p. 100 (Exhibit EE).

Although Howard disputes that he stated the reason he assaulted the cop on

August 21, his three-paragraph response does not really address whether he did or did not

make the statement attributed to him. Indeed, at least in part, the extract from his deposition

to which he refers tends to support at least the inference in that statement, i.e., that the date

ofAugust 21 had some connectionwithanniversaryof the incident involving George Jackson.

See Howard Deposition, pp. 20–22.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 8

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 8 of 17
validation of Inmate HOWARD as an active associate/member of the prison

gang knownas the Black Guerrilla Family. Inmate HOWARD'Sbehaviorshould

be closely monitored and documented whenever gang activity and/or

association is present. If and when. additional information becomes available

Inmate HOWARD'S gang status should be re-evaluated.28

9. The property searched by Harris was that of another inmate, Gerald Howard,

Prisoner No. G-21794.

10. Howard was validated as a member of the BGF on May 25, 2011, partially on

the basis of the CDC 128-B’s submitted by Defendants Martin and Harris.29

11. Howard was denied relief at the Director’s Level in a written decision, which

exhausted his administrative remedies.30

In denying relief the Director held:

I APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT: It is the appellant's positionthat the Institution

Gang Investigator (IGI) at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility

(SATF) retaliated against him by validating him as a member of the Black

Guerrilla Family prison gang (BGF) for filing a grievance. The appellant

contends that on or about June 27, 2011, the IGI Officer at the California

Correctional Institution (CCI) provided him with a copy of the CDC Form 128-

B2, Gang Validation/Rejection Review Chrono notice dated June 23, 2011,

approving the appellant's validationas a BGF member. The appellant asserts

that the validation is based on false information. Specifically, the appellant

claims that the symbols used as a source point towards his validationreceived

fromhis propertycould not have existed due to him neverreceiving his property

from the Corcoran State Prison and IOI/Investigative Services Unit (ISU) staff

28 Docket 58, p. 98 (Exhibit DD).

29 Docket 58, p. 115 (Exhibit JJ).

30 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(b)(“Unless otherwise stated in these regulations,

all appeals are subject to a third level of review, as described in section 3084.7, before

administrative remedies are deemed exhausted. All lower level reviews are subject to

modificationat the third level of review.”). Section3084.7 provides forthree levels ofreview,

the third level conducted by the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, or by a designated representative.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 9

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 9 of 17
entries note in the Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU) isolation logs as he

was out to court onthe days his propertywas searched. The appellantrequests

on appeal for the validation as a BGF member be "surrendered," the ASU

isolationlogbook be reviewed forthe purpose of identifying which ISU/IGI staff

were in the building on March 18 and March 19, 2010, as well as an

investigation into the matter.

II SECOND LEVEL'S DECISION: The reviewerfound that a thoroughreview

and consideration of the appellant's appeal and respective issues have been

completed. The reviewer noted the investigation revealed that on June 23,

2011, the appellant was validated as a member of the BGF. The appellant was

advised that California Code of Regulations, Title 15; Section (CCR)

3378(c)(3) states in part, "A member is an inmate/parolee or any person who

has been accepted into membership bya gang. This identificationrequires at

least three (3)independent source items of documentation indicative of actual

membership. Validation of an inmate/parolee or any person as a member of

a prison gang shall require at least one (1) source item be a direct link to a

current or former validated member or associate of the gang." CR 3378(c)(6)

states in part, "The verification of an inmate/parolee's gang identificationshall

be validated or rejected by the chief, office of correctional safety (Office of

Correctional Safety (OCS)), or a designee." The reviewer noted. that four out

of four items submitted by IGI Dean met the validation requirements. The

reviewer also noted that the confidential memorandum that met the validation

requirements was deemed reliable in accordance with CCR 3321. All source

items that were referenced in the validation review were disclosed to the

appellant at the time he was notified of his interview by the IGI. The reviewer

noted that the appellant's interview was documented along with his opinionon

each of the source items and submitted to the OCS with the appellant’s

validation package. The reviewer determined that the appellant failed to

provide anyevidence to support his claims. Nonetheless, the Second Level of

Review (SLR) partially granted the appellant in that the appellant's appeal

issued was investigated.

III THIRD LEVEL DECISION: Appeal is denied.

A. FINDINGS: The institution has adhered to the provisions of CCR 3378

and CDCR Operations Manual, Section (DOM) 52070 in referring the

appellant to the OCS relative to his gang activity. The Director's Level

of Review reviewed the validation documentation and notes that a

committee comprised of OCSspecial agents determined that sufficient

information exists to corroborate gang activity. The appellant's

associationwiththe prisongang has been appropriatelyreviewed bythe

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 10

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 10 of 17
OCS and and [sic] documented on a CDC Form 128-B2, Gang

Validation/RejectionReviewChrono. While the appellant is challenging

this information as false, he has not presented specific information on

his behalf to contradict the validation. The appellant merely presents

unsupported statements that the SATF IGI used sources that have no

factual evidence relative to validating him as a gang member. The TLR

finds the appellant's arguments lack merit and has been thoroughly

refuted by the evidence presented. Pursuant to CDCR regulations, the

debriefing process or verification of inactive status are two methods by

which the appellant could be released from the Security Housing Unit.

The examinerfinds that the reviewer has demonstrated that the IGl staff

completed an investigation into the appellant's prisongang activity and

submitted four separate documents to the OCS for evaluation and

disposition. The OCS staff validated the appellant as an associate of

the BGF based upon the four source documents, which were deemed

reliable. As for the appellant's claim that the validation documents are

not legitimate, these documents along withthe appellant's rebuttal were

reviewed by the OCS. Despite the appellant's dissatisfaction with the

SLR decision, further review at the TLR is not warranted.

The appellant has added new issues and requests to his appeal. The

additional requested action is not addressed herein as it is not

appropriate to expand the appeal beyond the initial problem and the

initiallyrequested action(CDC Form602,Inmate/Parolee AppealForm,

Sections A and B).

B. BASIS FOR THEDECISION:

CCR: 3001, 3004, 3023, 3084.1, 3084.5, 3270, 332l, 3378 DOM:

52070.1, 52070.2, 52070.3, 52070.6.1, 52070.6.4, 52070.16.1,

52070.17.2,52070.18.l,52070.18.2,52070.19,52070.19.2,52070.20,

52070.20.2

C. ORDER: No changes or modifications are required bythe Institution.

This decision exhausts the administrative remedy available to the

appellant within CDCR.

31

31 Docket 58, pp. 144-45 (Exhibit KK).

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 11

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 11 of 17
IV. DISCUSSION

The “adverse action” taken in this case was Howard’s validation as member of the

BGF gang. Although based in part on the CDC 128-B’s prepared by Harris and Martin, the

materials used in the validation were submitted by a third person, reviewed by two other

InstitutionalGang Investigators,32 and,as noted above, the validationas a gang member itself

was done by yet two others.

33 This validation was upheld on administrative appeal. While it

may be true that the information provided by Harris and Martin was part of the chain of

evidence upon which Howard was validated,34 neither Martin nor Harris took any “adverse

action” with respect to Howard.

Second, the fact that the gang materials seized by Harris belonged to anotherinmate,

was raised by Howard, and presumably considered by the prison authorities in connection

with the administrative appeal process.35 Nor is there any evidence that, at the time he

searched the items provided by the property clerk as allegedly belonging to Howard, Harris

knew, or had any reason to believe, that the materials did not belong to Howard.36

32 Docket 58, p. 127 (Exhibit KK).

33 Docket 58, p. 115 (Exhibit JJ).

34The Court notes that nowhere inhis FirstAmended Complaintdoes Howard contend

that Martin submitted any false documentation.

35 See Docket 58, pp. 118, 130–32 (Exhibit KK)

36

It appears fromthe record that, priorto the date that Harris obtained the propertyand

searched it, Howard had filed several complaints with prison authorities seeking to have his

property transferred from CSP to CSATF. Even if the Court were to assume that Harris had

knowledge of Howard’s attempts to obtain his property, the un-refuted fact is that Harris was

(continued...)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 12

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 12 of 17
With respect to Howard’s retaliation claim, analysis starts with the preposition that a

“chilling effect on a prisoner’s First Amendment right to file prison grievances is sufficient to

raise a raise a retaliation claim.”

37

“A prisoner suing prison officials under section 1983 for

retaliationmustallege thathe was retaliated against for exercising his constitutionalrights and

that the retaliatory action does not advance legitimate penological goals, suchas preserving

institutional order and discipline.”

38 Actions taken in retaliation of the exercise of a

constitutionalright do notfurthera legitimate penological goal.

39 Nor, are Defendants entitled

to qualified immunity with respect to the retaliation claim.

40

Accepting as true the statements Howard alleges were made byHarris and Martin at

the time of the March interview withrespect to taking some adverse actionagainst Howard,41

36

(...continued)

provided the propertybythe CSATF propertyofficer as propertybelonging to Howard. Harris

was entitled to rely upon this information. Nothing inthe law or the prison regulations require

a investigating correctional officerto accept the protestations of a prisonerthat contradict the

information provided by another prison officer.

37 Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 2003).

38

Id. (quoting Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9thCir. 1994) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

39

Id. at 1289.

40

Id. at 1290.

41 Docket 58, Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Facts No. 19, pp. 5–6. In his 

September 10, 2014 depositionHoward testified that, withrespectto the March10 CDC 602,

Harris stated: “Iain’t interested inthis.” [Deposition, p. 33] “See, this is what I can do to you.”

“At a stroke of the pen . . . I can keep you the whole rest of your life.” “I’ll validate you.”

[Deposition pp. 36–37] “What I am going to do is teachyou a lesson about filing paperwork

on us.” [Deposition, p. 52] With respect to Martin, Howard testified that “[Martin] just

(continued...)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 13

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 13 of 17
the Court agrees with Defendants that their subsequent actions do not give rise to an

actionable retaliation claim.

First, while Bruce lends some support to Howard’s position, the facts in this case

materiallydiffer. Unlike the situationinBruce: (1)the investigationinto Howard’s gang activity

was initiated and the evidence provided by Harris and Martin was obtained prior to the time

Howard filed his complaint against them; (2) there is no evidence that any of the complaints

Howard made against other correctional officials had been decided in Howard’s favor;

(3)there was no prior validationproceeding inwhichit was determined that the evidence was

insufficient to validate Howard as a BGF member; (4) contrary to Howard’s bald allegation,

it does not appear from the record that the validationwas supported inpart bystale evidence;

and (5)the statements attributed to Harris and Martinare farless damning that the statement

in Bruce.

42

41

(...continued)

confirmed what Harris said, is that it sounded like a plan, that they were going to file

paperwork on me.” [Deposition, p. 66]

42 The Ninth Circuit in Bruce summarized the evidence as follows:

Iasked Washingtonif he had contacted the IGI’s at NorthKernand PelicanBay.

He responded, “No. And I don’t have to.” Washington then stated that I had

“pissed off higher-ups” withmy“complaints and protests,” and the last incident

“where youacted as spokespersonfor other prisoners’ complaints was the last

straw.” Washington then stated that Lt. Coziahr and himself were ordered by

these “higher-ups to validate you.” . . . Washington stated also to me, “The

higher-ups want you validated to make an example out of you to discourage

similar complaints and protests . . . the bosses don't care for organized

complaining . . .. Your family filing a complaint to the Warden wasn't a good

idea either.” This is “exactly the sort of thing that pisses off the higher-ups.”

(continued...)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 14

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 14 of 17
Second, while it maybe true that the reports filed byHarris and Martinwere inaccurate,

there is no evidence that, other than Howard’s denial that it was his, they knew the materials

allegedly found in Howard’s possession did not belong to him. Howard’s claim is based

solely upon supposition and speculation, which is insufficient as a matter of law to create a

question of fact to be decided by a jury.

43

This Court has considered the other arguments advanced byHoward and finds them

to be unpersuasive, irrelevant, or without substantial merit. These are discussed briefly.

With respect to his due process claim, as noted above, prisoners have no liberty

interest in their classification status as a gang member.

44 Prisonofficials need only provide

an inmate with notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to present his views.45

Furthermore, a prisongang affiliationneed onlybe supported by“some evidence.”

46 The fatal

omissioninHoward’s position is that he neither alleges nor argues that, evenif the evidence

42

(...continued)

Washingtonthenstated “the Wardencalled me this morning asking about your

validation.” . . . Iasked Washingtonwhat evidence was being used against me,

he refused to say except to state, “it was already in your c-file whenit was sent

to our office.” Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1289.

43 See Neely v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 584 F.2d 341, 345–46 (9th Cir.

1978).

44 Carrea v. Beard, 588 Fed. Appx. 697, 697 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (citing

Moody v. Daggert, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976)).

45 See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 228–29 (2005) (notice and opportunity to

be heard are adequate safeguards for placement in maximum custody).

46 See Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1287 (applying the standard enunciated inSuperintendent

v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985)).

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 15

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 15 of 17
provided by Harris was false and is disregarded, the remaining evidence was insufficient to

support the gang-affiliation finding. Consequently, Howard has failed to carry his burden of

proof.

Finally, at the time Howard was authenticated as a BGF gang member he was held in

Ad-Seg.47 Consequently, Howard’s validation as a gang member had no effect on the

conditions of his confinement. That is, Howard was confined in Ad-Seg for reasons

independent of his gang membership, i.e., his attempted murder of a correctional officer.

Thus, even if this Court were to find in favor of Howard with respect to the challenged

evidence, it would have no practical effect upon the conditions of his confinement. The acts

of Harris and Martin did not result in, nor could they have resulted in, any change to

the conditions of Howard’s confinement. Put another way, because there is no causal

connection between the actions of either Harris or Martin and his confinement in Ad-Seg,

Howard has not suffered any compensable injury as result of that confinement.

Nor,because it is not withinthe purview of federal courts to interfere directlywithprison

administration in the manner requested by Howard, may this Court grant Howard either

declaratory or injunctive relief.

48

47 Howard’s owntestimonyindicates that he had been housed inthe SHU at Corcoran

State Prison from some time in2008 until his transferto CSATF. Howard Deposition, p. 12.

48

Id. at 1290. Furthermore,because Howard is now housed atPelicanBay, this Court

cannot grant any effective equitable relief in any event.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 16

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 16 of 17
V. ORDER

Based uponthe foregoing, Defendants’ MotionforSummaryJudgment at Docket 55

is GRANTED.

The First Amended Complaint on file herein is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice.

Judgment thereon to be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.

This Court, having fully considered the matter finds that reasonable jurists could not

disagree with this Court’s resolutionof his constitutional claims, orthat jurists could conclude

the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.

Accordingly, any appeal would be frivolous or taken in bad faith.

49 Accordingly, Plaintiff's in

forma pauperis status is hereby REVOKED.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enterfinal judgment accordingly, whichstates that

the dismissal counts as a “strike” under 42 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of April, 2015.

S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

49 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092

(9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of in forma pauperis status is appropriate if the appeal is

frivolous).

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 55

Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 17

Case 1:12-cv-01875-JLT Document 61 Filed 04/08/15 Page 17 of 17