Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06977/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06977-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY 

SHERIFF'S DEPT.; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-6977 SI (pr)

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

AND FOR AMENDMENT

Gabriel Hernandez's complaint alleged that he had been subjected to physical assaults,

verbal harassment, and placement in a single cell for two weeks at the Santa Clara County Jail.

On April 2, 2007, the court found that the complaint did not state a claim for relief, except as to

a due process claim for Hernandez's two-week placement in a single cell. The court ordered

Hernandez to file an amended complaint to correct several deficiencies in the complaint.

Hernandez did not file an amended complaint and the deadline by which to do so has passed.

Therefore, all claims except the due process claim are dismissed without leave to further amend.

One of the problems the court identified in the complaint was the absence of information

as to whether Hernandez was a convict or pretrial detainee at the time of the events alleged in

the complaint. The absence of information about whether he was a convict or pretrial detainee

actually affects whether there is a cognizable due process claim and therefore requires the court

to revisit its earlier determination that a due process claim had been adequately alleged. In the

original order of dismissal, the court wrote: "Hernandez states that he was put in a single cell for

15 days as punishment. Liberally construed, that claim is cognizable as a due process violation.

Case 3:06-cv-06977-SI Document 11 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 2
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

See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-37 (1979)." Order Of Dismissal With Leave To Amend,

p. 5. In making that statement, the court had assumed that Hernandez was a pretrial detainee,

but it now appears that the assumption should not have been made because the pretrial detainee

vs. convict distinction makes a big difference for this particular claim. Bell only applies if

Hernandez was a pretrial detainee when he was put in the single cell, as Bell severely limits

punishment of pretrial detainees. If, on the other hand, Hernandez was a convict at the relevant

time, the applicable standard is the much stricter standard in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,

484 (1995), which requires that the challenged decision cause a deprivation of "real substance,"

which here would mean the imposition of an "atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in

relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life," id. at 484. Fifteen days in a single cell or

solitary confinement would not amount to an atypical and significant hardship on a convict.

See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 485-86 (30-day disciplinary segregation was not an atypical and

significant hardship); Mujahid v. Meyer, 59 F.3d 931, 932 (9th Cir. 1995) (under Sandin no

liberty interest when inmate placed in disciplinary segregation for 14 days). The importance of

this is that whether a due process claim for relief has been stated depends on whether Hernandez

was a pretrial detainees or a convict at the time he was put in the single cell. Hernandez must

amend to provide this information.

No later than January 11, 2008, Hernandez must file an amendment to the complaint to

identify whether he was a pretrial detainee or convict on December 11, 2005, when he was

placed in the single cell. The amendment need not be a long document; in fact, it would suffice

if it was just a single page labelled "Amendment to Complaint" with the case name and number

on it, and on which Hernandez states "I was a _____ on December 11, 2005," inserting "pretrial

detainee" or "convict" on the blank line. If he does not file the amendment by the deadline, this

action will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2007 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06977-SI Document 11 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 2