Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04110/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04110-0/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

 18 U.S.C. § 4100(b), the implementing legislation which authorizes the transfer of inmates

to or from foreign countries, states in part: "An offender may be transferred from the United States

pursuant to this chapter only to a country of which the offender is a citizen or national. Only an

offender who is a citizen or national of the United States may be transferred to the United States."

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRAHAM DE-LUIS-CONTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.

Defendants. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-4110 SBA (pr)

ORDER OF SERVICE AND

ADDRESSING PENDING

MOTIONS

(Docket nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Graham De-Luis-Conti, an inmate of Salinas Valley State Prison, California,

filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also filed an application for in forma

pauperis status. 

Plaintiff alleges that he is a British citizen. Since Plaintiff has been incarcerated in 2001,

he alleges that he was never informed of his rights to be transferred to a prison in his country of

origin under California Penal Code §§ 2912, 5028(a).

California Penal Code § 2912 is entitled "Foreign Prisoner Transfer Program; notification

to foreign born inmate concerning eligibility to serve term of imprisonment in nation of

citizenship." Section 2912(a) states:

Under its Foreign Prisoner Transfer Program, the Board of Prison Terms shall

devise a method of notifying each foreign born inmate in a prison or reception

operated by the Department of Corrections that he or she may be eligible to serve

his or her term of imprisonment in his or her nation of citizenship as provided in

federal treaties.1

Cal. Penal Code § 2912.

California Penal Code § 5028 is entitled "Foreign nationals; transfers to current or former

nation of origin; notifying foreign consulates; procedures to process applications." Section
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

5028(a) states:

Upon the entry of any person who is currently or previously a foreign national

into a facility operated by the Department of Corrections, the Director of

Corrections shall inform the person that he or she may apply to be transferred to

serve the remainder of his or her prison term in his or her current or former nation

of citizenship. The director shall inform the person that he or she may contact his

or her consulate and shall ensure that if notification is requested by the inmate,

that the inmate's nearest consulate or embassy is notified without delay of his or

her incarceration.

Cal. Penal Code § 5028(a). 

Plaintiff alleges that he was unaware of any treaty which allows for a transfer to his

country of origin until the British consulate mailed him the necessary paperwork to apply for the

transfer. He claims that the Director of the California Department of Corrections ("CDC") never

informed him of such treaty transfer rights pursuant to California Penal Code § 5028(a). Plaintiff

also alleges that he spoke to other foreign inmates, who claim that they were never informed

about their rights to transfer to their country of origin.

Plaintiff alleges that he applied for a foreign prisoner transfer to his country of origin, but

that Board of Prison Terms ("BPT") Chairperson Carol A. Daly denied his application on

September 4, 2003, alleging that Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for the transfer. Plaintiff

claims "[t]he denial was based on [his] criminal charges, and that he [was] enrolled [and]

assigned to a mental health program, furthermore, . . . [Plaintiff] was ordered to pay $5,000 [in]

restitution." (Compl. at 7.) Plaintiff states that the basis of the denial was meritless because: 1)

his criminal charges do not effect the prison transfer program; 2) he is not assigned to any mental

health program; and 3) he owes no restitution because a restitution hearing was never

scheduled.

Plaintiff has filed this action as a class action suit on behalf of all foreign prisoners

seeking prison transfer to their own country of origin. (See Compl. at 3.) He alleges violations

of state law, Federal law, the Constitution of the United States of America, and International

Treaties.

Plaintiff names Chairperson Daly, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the Director of
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

CDC as Defendants in this action. He alleges that the denial of his application for a foreign

prisoner transfer violates his constitutional rights and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. 

He also alleges that Chairperson Daly "has with deliberate indifference denied applications for

prison transfer based on the grounds that honoring the prison transfer treaty would deny the state

of Federal funding," and that she failed in her duty to ensure that the CDC enforced California

Penal Codes §§ 2912 and 5028(a). (Compl. at 5.) He further alleges that Governor

Schwarzenegger failed in his duty to ensure that state law, Federal law and International Treaties

were carried out, specifically the laws and treaties related to the transfer of foreign prisoners back

to their countries of origin. 

DISCUSSION

A. 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. See 28

U.S.C. § 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. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,

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

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Class Action

Plaintiff seeks to represent himself in this litigation along with all foreign prisoners

seeking prison transfers to their own country of origin.

It is well-established that pro se prisoner plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives

able to fairly represent and adequately protect the interests of a purported class. See Oxendine v.

Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (pro se prisoner could not maintain class action on
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

behalf of other prisoners); see also Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) ("a

litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself"). 

Therefore, the instant action cannot proceed as a class action. Plaintiff is limited to asserting

claims for violations of his own civil rights, and he may not litigate claims on behalf of other

inmates. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's attempt to bring a class action is DISMISSED because he may not

proceed in this action on behalf of anyone but himself.

C. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

Plaintiff's complaint includes a claim for relief which seeks to hold Governor

Schwarzenegger liable for actions taken in his official capacity as an overseer of the State prison

system. Plaintiff alleges that Governor Schwarzenegger "has failed in his duty as governor of

California to ensure that State laws, Federal laws and international treaties have been carried

out." (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff further alleges that Governor Schwarzenegger "has failed in his

duty to ensure appointed officials carry out their duties, obligations, such as [Chairperson Daly],

who's [sic] responsibility is to ensure such treaties are honored." (Id. at 5.) 

The Eleventh Amendment bars from the federal courts suits against a state by its own

citizens, citizens of another state or citizens or subjects of any foreign state. See Atascadero

State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978);

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 676-77 (1974). Unless a state has waived its Eleventh

Amendment immunity or Congress has overridden it, a state cannot be sued regardless of the

relief sought. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n.14 (1985) (citing Pugh, 438 U.S. at

782). This Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state officials sued in their official

capacities. See Graham, 472 U.S. at 169-70. A suit will be barred under the Eleventh

Amendment if the judgment sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain or

interfere with the public administration, or if the effect of the judgment would be to restrain the

State from acting or to compel it to act. See id. A federal court may not entertain a suit against a

State official that in essence seeks damages from the public treasury nor may it order State
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

officials to conform their conduct with State law. See Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v.

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 97-121 (1984); Confederated Tribes & Bands v. Locke, 176 F.3d 467,

469 (9th Cir. 1999) (damages claim against governor in his official capacity barred by Eleventh

Amendment). Moreover, a request for prospective injunctive relief which requires the State to

provide monetary relief for past behavior is in substance a claim for retroactive relief barred by

the Eleventh Amendment. See Native Village of Noatak v. Blatchford, 38 F.3d 1505, 1512 (9th

Cir. 1994).

Plaintiff seeks to compel Governor Schwarzenegger to take future actions in his official

capacity to comply with State law by "ensur[ing] that every foreign national incarcerated is

informed of their right to prison transfer as states in the prison transfer treaty program as well as

in the California Penal Codes." (Compl. at 13.) This claim is barred by the Eleventh

Amendment. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim for relief against Governor Schwarzenegger is DISMISSED

with prejudice.

D. Eighth Amendment Violation

Plaintiff claims that as a foreign born inmate, he was entitled to be transferred to serve the

rest of his sentence at a prison in his country of origin. He alleges that "the fact that the

Governor [and] B.P.T. Chairperson C.A. Daly refuses [sic] and denys [sic] foreign prisoner

transfers violated the above named laws and most certainly constitutes cruel and unusual

punishment to those who are foreign nationals." (Compl. at 7.) He claims that he has "no ties to

the United States . . . but has strong ties to his [c]ountry of [o]rigin." (Id. at 8.) He states that all

his family members are in Europe, including his wife, daughter, son, siblings, cousins, etc. (Id.)

Therefore, Plaintiff requested to be transferred to serve the rest of his prison sentence at a prison

in his country of origin in order to be closer to his family. (Id.)

The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit

inhumane ones. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The treatment a prisoner

receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the
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

Eighth Amendment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). In its prohibition of

"cruel and unusual punishment," the Eighth Amendment places restraints on prison officials. See

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (prison officials may not use excessive force

against prisoners). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are

met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious, see Farmer, 511 U.S. at

834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and (2) the prison official possesses a

sufficiently culpable state of mind, see id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297).

The Court finds that it is not "cruel and unusual punishment" for Plaintiff's application for

a foreign prisoner transfer to be denied. Cf. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983)

(prisoners have no constitutional right to incarceration in a particular institution.). Furthermore,

it is not an "objectively, sufficiently serious" deprivation which amounts to "cruel and unusual

punishment" for a British citizen, such as Plaintiff, to be incarcerated at a California prison that is

not easily accessible to his family. Cf. Davis v. Carlson, 837 F.2d 1318, 1319 (5th Cir. 1988) (no

right to transfer to prison near wife); Moore v. United States Attorney Gen., 473 F.2d 1375, 1376

(5th Cir. 1973) (action to compel confinement near wife and children not cognizable); Beshaw v.

Fenton, 635 F.2d 239, 246 (3d Cir. 1980) ("[W]e are aware of no authority suggesting that a

transfer to a facility not easily accessible to a prisoner's relatives . . . necessarily implicates

liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause."), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 912 (1981). 

Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Eighth Amendement claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.

E. Claims Regarding Plaintiff's Rights Under International Treaty and Foreign 

Prisoner Transfer Program

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed in their duty to ensure that state law, Federal law

and International Treaties were carried out (specifically, the laws and treaties relating to foreign

prisoner transfers) based on: (1) the denial of his application for a foreign prisoner transfer and

(2) the CDC's failure to inform him of his rights under the international treaty relating to the

Foreign Prisoner Transfer Program.
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

Plaintiff alleges Chairperson Daly's reasons for denying his application were meritless. 

However, international treaties, such as the treaty at issue, allow for these transfer decisions to be

discretionary and do not create an enforceable right. See Marquez-Ramos v. Reno, 69 F.3d 477,

479 (10th Cir. 1995) ("to the extent a statute vests discretion in a public official, his exercise of

that discretion should not be controlled by the judiciary"). 

Plaintiff claims that since he was incarcerated in 2001, the prison officials never informed

him about his rights under the treaty regarding foreign prisoner transfers pursuant to California

Penal Code §§ 2912, 5028(a). 

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against Chairperson Daly and

the Director of CDC for relief based on the violation of Plaintiff's rights under the foreign

prisoner transfer treaty, which were incorporated into California Penal Code §§ 2912 and

5028(a).

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff's application for in forma pauperis status (docket no. 2) is GRANTED. 

The total filing fee due is $250.00. The initial partial filing fee due for Plaintiff at this time is

$0.00. A copy of this Order and the attached instruction sheet will be sent to Plaintiff, the Prison

Account Trust Office, and the Court's Financial Office. 

2. Plaintiff's attempt to bring a class action is DISMISSED.

3. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.

4. The Court finds a COGNIZABLE claim for relief based on the violation of

Plaintiff's rights under the foreign prisoner transfer treaty, which were incorporated into

California Penal Code §§ 2912 and 5028(a), against BPT Chairperson Carol A. Daly and the

Director of CDC.

5. All other claims and defendants are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice from this

action.

6. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall

serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of: the complaint as well as copies of all attachments
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

thereto (docket no. 1) and a copy of this Order upon: (1) BPT Chairperson Carol A. Daly and

(2) the Director of CDC. The Clerk shall also mail copies of these documents to the Attorney

General of the State of California. Additionally, the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on

Plaintiff. 

7. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:

a. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, no later than thirty (30) days from the date their answer is

due, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The

motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 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 their summary

judgment motion is due. All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court

and served on Defendants no later than forty-five (45) days after the date on which Defendants'

motion is filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to plaintiffs:

The defendants have made a motion for summary 

judgment by which they seek 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

Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in [Defendants']

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
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

judgment is granted in favor of [Defendants], your case will

be dismissed and there will be no trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Plaintiff is advised to read

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317

(1986) (party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence showing triable

issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that

because he bears the burden of proving his allegations in this case, he must be prepared to

produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files his opposition to Defendants'

dispositive motion. Such evidence may include sworn declarations from himself and other

witnesses to the incident, and copies of documents authenticated by sworn declaration. Plaintiff

is advised that if he fails to submit declarations contesting the version of the facts contained in

Defendants' declarations, Defendants' version may be taken as true and the case may be decided

in Defendants' favor without a trial. Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary judgment simply

by repeating the allegations of his complaint.

c. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than

fifteen (15) days after the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed. 

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. 

8. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Leave of Court pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendants to depose Plaintiff and

any other necessary witnesses confined in prison. 

9. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants, or

their counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to

Defendants or their counsel.

10. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any 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
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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

11. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. 

However, the party making a motion for an extension of time is not relieved from his or her duty

to comply with the deadlines set by the Court merely by having made a motion for an extension

of time. The party making the motion must still meet the deadlines set by the Court until an

order addressing the motion for an extension of time is issued. Any motion for an extension of

time must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the deadline sought to be extended.

12. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 3), motion to produce

documents (docket no. 6), motions to compel (docket nos. 7, 11) and motion for a hearing

regarding motion to compel (docket no. 9) are DENIED without prejudice as premature. Plaintiff

may renew these motions after Defendants file a dispositive motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/2/05 _______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge
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

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PAYMENT OF PRISONER'S FILING FEE

The prisoner shown as the plaintiff or petitioner on the attached order has filed a civil action in

forma pauperis in this court and owes to the court a filing fee. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the

fee is to be paid as follows:

The initial partial filing fee listed on the attached order should be deducted by the prison

trust account office from the prisoner's trust account and forwarded to the clerk of the

court as the first installment payment on the filing fee. This amount is twenty percent of

the greater of (a) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's account for the 6-month

period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint/petition or (b) the average

monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the 6-month period immediately preceding

the filing of the complaint/petition. 

Thereafter, on a monthly basis, 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to

the prisoner's trust account should be deducted and forwarded to the court each time the

amount in the account exceeds ten dollars ($10.00). The prison trust account office

should continue to do this until the filing fee has been paid in full. 

If the prisoner does not have sufficient funds in his/her account to pay the initial partial filing fee,

the prison trust account office should forward the available funds, and carry the balance forward

each month until the amount is fully paid. 

If the prisoner has filed more than one complaint, (s)he is required to pay a filing fee for each

case. The trust account office should make the monthly calculations and payments for each case

in which it receives an order granting in forma pauperis and these instructions.

The prisoner's name and case number must be noted on each remittance. The initial partial

filing fee is due within thirty days of the date of the attached order. Checks should be made

payable to Clerk, U.S. District Court and sent to Prisoner Accounts Receivable, U.S. District

Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36060, San Francisco, CA 94102.

cc: Plaintiff/Petitioner

Finance Office