Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-01992/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-01992-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARK ANTHONY CANDLER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SANTA RITA COUNTY JAIL WATCH 

COMMANDER, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 11-cv-01992-CW 

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Re: Dkt. No. 78 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California 

Men’s Colony, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about his conditions of confinement 

during the period of his incarceration as a pretrial detainee at 

the Alameda County Jail in Santa Rita (SRCJ). On January 26, 

2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

on all claims in the first amended complaint. However, because 

summary judgment on the due process claim was granted on the 

ground that Plaintiff failed to name the proper defendants, the 

Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second 

amended complaint (2AC) to allow him to name the proper 

defendants. On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff’s SAC was filed, 

which the Court now reviews. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Standard of Review 

 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any 

case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity 

or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

Case 4:11-cv-01992-CW Document 79 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 6
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, 

malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted 

or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be 

liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 A. Section 1983 

 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and 

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting 

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 

(1988). 

 Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant’s 

actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a 

federally protected right. Lemire v. California Dept. 

Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 

2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris 

v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A 

person deprives another of a constitutional right within the 

meaning of § 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in 

another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is 

legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the 

plaintiff complains. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. 

 B. Procedural Due Process 

 Pretrial detainees are protected from punishment without due 

Case 4:11-cv-01992-CW Document 79 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 6
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

process under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746-47 (1987); Bell v. 

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-36 (1979). Interests that are 

procedurally protected by the Due Process Clause may arise from 

two sources——the Due Process Clause itself and laws of the 

states. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27 (1976). Due 

process for placement in administrative segregation for security 

purposes requires only an informal nonadversary hearing within a 

reasonable time after the prisoner is segregated, notification to 

the prisoner of the reasons for the segregation and allowing the 

prisoner an opportunity to present his views; it does not require 

detailed written notice of charges, representation by counsel or 

counsel-substitute, an opportunity to present witnesses or a 

written decision describing the reasons for placing the prisoner 

in administrative segregation. Id. at 1100-01. Toussaint v. 

McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled in 

part on other grounds, Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). 

 Violation of procedural due process rights requires only 

procedural correction and not a reinstatement of the substantive 

right. Raditch v. United States, 929 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 

1991). In § 1983 cases, a plaintiff can recover compensatory 

damages for a proven due process violation only if the 

deprivation of the substantive right was unjustified on the 

merits. If it is determined after post-deprivation procedures 

that the deprivation was justified, a plaintiff can recover only 

nominal damages for the due process violation. Id. at 481 n.5; 

Vanelli v. Reynolds School Dist. No. 7, 667 F.2d 773, 781 (9th 

Cir. 1982). If, on the other hand, process is provided and the 

Case 4:11-cv-01992-CW Document 79 Filed 03/04/15 Page 3 of 6
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

plaintiff prevails, he may be entitled to compensatory damages. 

Id. at 776. 

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations 

 In his SAC, Plaintiff makes one new allegation regarding his 

due process claim——that Gordon Bowan was the Watch Commander when 

Deputies Bervin Hankins, Christopher Feeny, Rogelio Matedne, Mark 

Schlegal, Terry Carson, Aaron Garth, Robert Bixby, Robert 

Griffith and Michael Molloy placed him in disciplinary lock-up 

without disciplinary charges or a hearing.1 

 As discussed in the Court’s January 26, 2015 Order, 

Plaintiff’s due process claim is based on the Classifications 

Unit’s decision to place him in administrative segregation 

without due process protections. Summary judgment on this claim 

was granted to the defendants named in the original complaint 

because they were not the “proper defendants,” in that they were 

not involved in the Classifications Unit’s decision. From 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, it 

appeared that he was prepared to name the individuals in the 

Classifications Unit who decided to place him in administrative 

segregation without due process. His brief allegation in the SAC 

does not indicate that the named individuals were in the 

Classifications Unit or explain how they were involved in the 

decision to place him in administrative segregation. Therefore, 

the SAC does not allege a cognizable due process claim against 

the individuals Plaintiff names. However, Plaintiff is granted 

 

1

 Plaintiff realleges claims against D. Sanchas, D.L. Snider and 

B.S. Quin. Sanchas, Snider and Quin were granted summary 

judgment on these claims in the Court’s January 26, 2013 Order. 

Plaintiff may not reallege claims against these individuals. 

Case 4:11-cv-01992-CW Document 79 Filed 03/04/15 Page 4 of 6
5 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

one more opportunity to file an amended complaint to remedy this 

deficiency. 

 To state a due process claim in his amended complaint, 

Plaintiff must allege that his placement in administrative 

segregation was not for disciplinary reasons and that he did not 

get a hearing, notice of the reasons for his placement or an 

opportunity to present a response. He must allege which person 

or persons made the decision to place him in administrative 

segregation without these due process protections. Because the 

conditions in administrative segregation that Plaintiff alleged 

in his original complaint——lack of cleaning supplies, showers and 

exercise——were found not be constitutional violations, Plaintiff 

should allege the conditions he suffered in administrative 

segregation, such as isolation, that created atypical and 

significant hardships for him in comparison to the ordinary 

conditions in the SRCJ. 

CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

 1. Plaintiff’s SAC fails to state a cognizable due process 

claim against the named individuals. However, Plaintiff is 

granted leave to amend to remedy the deficiency noted above. 

 2. If Plaintiff can cure the pleading deficiency described 

above, he shall file a Third Amended Complaint within twenty-one 

days from the date this Order is filed. Plaintiff is cautioned 

that, to state a cognizable claim against any individual, he must 

specify how that individual violated his due process rights. The 

Third Amended Complaint must include the caption and civil case 

number used in this order (C 11-1992 CW (PR)) and the words THIRD 

Case 4:11-cv-01992-CW Document 79 Filed 03/04/15 Page 5 of 6
6 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff has leave only to 

allege a due process claim against the individuals in the 

Classifications Unit who made the decision to place him in 

administrative segregation without due process. His Third 

Amended Complaint may not include any of his previous claims that 

have been adjudicated against him or any new claims. Plaintiff 

may not rely on allegations from any previous complaint; he must 

include all the allegations necessary to state a due process 

claim in his Third Amended Complaint. 

 3. Failure to file an amended complaint within twenty-one 

days and in accordance with this Order will result in a finding 

that further leave to amend would be futile, and the case will be 

dismissed. 

 4. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 

Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address 

by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice of 

Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a 

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of 

this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: March 4, 2015 

__________________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:11-cv-01992-CW Document 79 Filed 03/04/15 Page 6 of 6