Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04649/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04649-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT BRUCE

Plaintiff,

 v

MATTHEW CATE, Warden, et al,

Defendant(s).

 /

No C-09-4649 VRW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”)

in Crescent City, California, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 USC § 1983 alleging that various PBSP officials

violated his constitutional rights. Specifically, plaintiff claims

PBSP officials: (1) retaliated against him for his use of the

prison administrative grievance system and by filing prior actions

in federal court; (2) denied him due process by re-validating him as

a member of a prison gang based on false evidence and without the

necessary procedural protections; and (3) violated his

constitutional rights by interfering with his mail delivery service. 

Doc #1. 

Case 3:09-cv-04649-JW Document 4 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 7
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

I

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or

officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 USC § 1915A(a). 

The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,

or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief.” Id § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by pro se

litigants, however, must be liberally construed. Balistreri v

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F2d 696, 699 (9th Cir 1990).

To state a claim under 42 USC § 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 US 42, 48 (1988).

A

Within the prison context, a viable claim of First

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion

that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2)

because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such

action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment

rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate

correctional goal. Rhodes v Robinson, 408 F3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir

2005). The right of access to the courts extends to the exercise of

established prison grievance procedures, Bradley v Hall, 64 F3d

Case 3:09-cv-04649-JW Document 4 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 7
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

1276, 1279 (9th Cir 1995), such that a prisoner may not be

retaliated against for using such procedures. Rhodes, 408 F3d at

567; Bruce v Ylst, 351 F3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir 2003). 

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations appear to

state a cognizable retaliation claim under § 1983 and defendants 

will be served. See Rhodes, 408 F3d at 567–68. 

B

The decision to place and retain a prisoner in

administrative segregation must comport with procedural due process

only if the specific deprivation at play constitutes “atypical and

significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary

incidents of prison life.” Sandin v Conner, 515 US 472, 484 (1995). 

Plaintiff’s deprivation here – a prolonged term of segregation in

the PBSP’s Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) based on allegedly false

evidence and without adequate procedural protections – suggests

sufficient severity to implicate procedural due process protection. 

Assuming that this is the case, the Ninth Circuit has held

that plaintiff was entitled to the following procedures before

placement in the SHU: (1) an informal non-adversary hearing within

a reasonable time after being segregated; (2) notice of the charges

or the reasons segregation is being considered; and (3) an

opportunity to present his views. See Toussaint v McCarthy, 801 F2d

1080, 1100 (9th Cir 1986). There also must be “some evidence” to

support the decision to segregate plaintiff for administrative

reasons, see id at 1104–05 (citing Superintendent v Hill, 472 US

445, 455 (1985)), and the evidence relied upon must have “some

Case 3:09-cv-04649-JW Document 4 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 7
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

indicia of reliability.” See Madrid v Gomez, 889 F Supp 1146,

1273–74 (ND Cal 1995). 

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations challenging

his re-validation and continued retention in administrative

segregation in the SHU at PBSP appear to state a cognizable claim

under 42 USC § 1983 for a denial of due process and defendants will

be served.

C

Prisoners enjoy a First Amendment right to send and

receive mail. See Witherow v Paff, 52 F3d 264, 265 (9th Cir 1995)

(citing Thornburgh v Abbott, 490 US 401, 407 (1989)). A prison,

however, may adopt regulations or practices which impinge on a

prisoner’s First Amendment rights as long as the regulations are

“reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” See

Turner v Safley, 482 US 78, 89 (1987). The Turner standard applies

to regulations and practices concerning all correspondence between

prisoners and to regulations concerning incoming mail received by

prisoners from non-prisoners. See Thornburgh, 490 US at 413.

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations that PBSP

violated his constitutional rights by interfering with his mail

delivery service appear to state a cognizable claim under 42 USC §

1983 and defendants will be served.

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-04649-JW Document 4 Filed 04/05/10 Page 4 of 7
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

II

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown: 

1. The clerk shall issue summons and the United States

Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the

complaint in this matter, all attachments thereto, and copies of

this order on defendants. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this

order on plaintiff. 

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the

court orders as follows:

a. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of

this order, defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or

other dispositive motion. A motion for summary judgment shall be

supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all

respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as

exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events

at issue. If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be

resolved by summary judgment or other dispositive motion, they shall

so inform the court prior to the date their motion is due. All

papers filed with the court shall be served promptly on plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion

shall be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later

than thirty (30) days after defendants serve plaintiff with the

motion. 

c. Plaintiff is advised that 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

Case 3:09-cv-04649-JW Document 4 Filed 04/05/10 Page 5 of 7
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

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 contradicts

the facts shown in the 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 judgment is

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

Rand v Rowland, 154 F3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir 1998) (en banc) (App

A). 

Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 USC § 1997e(a)

will, if granted, end your case, albeit without prejudice. You must

“develop a record” and present it in your opposition in order to

dispute any “factual record” presented by the defendants in their

motion to dismiss. Wyatt v Terhune, 315 F3d 1108, 1120 n14 (9th Cir

2003).

d. Defendants shall file a reply brief within

fifteen (15) days of the date on which plaintiff serves them with

the opposition.

Case 3:09-cv-04649-JW Document 4 Filed 04/05/10 Page 6 of 7
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

 e. 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. 

3. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. No further court order is required before

the parties may conduct discovery.

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must

be served on defendants, or defendants’ counsel once counsel has

been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to

defendants or defendants’ counsel.

5. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this

case. Plaintiff must keep the court and all parties 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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

G:\PRO-SE\VRW\CR.09\Bruce-09-4649-order of service.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-04649-JW Document 4 Filed 04/05/10 Page 7 of 7