Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03761/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03761-0/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

 A Consent Decree was entered into on October 23, 1980, which requires SQSP prison

officials to take a number of corrective actions in the housing, treatment and privileges afforded

condemned inmates. See Thompson v. Enomoto, Case No. 79-1630 SAW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23,

1980). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT LYNN PINHOLSTER 

and LUIS MACIEL,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

J. S. WOODFORD, et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-3761 SBA (PR) 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

RECONSIDER AND TERMINATING

PENDING MOTION

(Docket nos. 29, 30)

Plaintiffs Scott Lynn Pinholster and Luis Maciel, condemned state prisoners incarcerated at

San Quentin State Prison (hereinafter "SQSP"), filed the instant pro se civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs claim that their due process rights were violated by members of the

Institutional Review Committee when they were placed indefinitely on Grade B status as SQSP

death row inmates subject to the Thompson Consent Decree1 (hereinafter "Consent Decree") and

denied privileges without "meaningful review." Plaintiffs contend they remain in administrative

segregation on an indefinite basis. Plaintiffs seek damages as well as injunctive and declaratory

relief. 

On March 31, 2004, the Court reviewed the complaint and found that, liberally construed,

Plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to state a due process claim. The Court ordered Defendants to

file dispositive motions in this case. On June 1, 2004, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint

for failure to state a claim. On June 18, 2004, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion. 

In an Order dated March 31, 2005, the Court found that while Plaintiffs asserted facts

Case 4:03-cv-03761-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 10
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

 The plaintiffs in Thompson brought suit on July 6, 1979, alleging that the conditions of

confinement of condemned inmates at SQSP constituted cruel and unusual punishment and a denial

of due process, in violation of the state and federal constitutions. This twenty-eight-year-old case is

still pending at this time before the Honorable William H. Alsup, and it is now known as Lancaster

et al. v. Tilton, et al., Case No. 79-1630 WHA (PR).

3

 On March 7, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a document in the Thompson/Lancaster case entitled

"Pro Se Classmember's [sic] Motion for F.R.C.P. Rules 23(d) and 24(a) Application to Now

Intervene; Conflict of Interest; Notice of Court Ruling and Prior Complaint for Hearing in this Case

and Court."

2

sufficient to state a claim with regard to their conditions of confinement, they failed to allege those

facts supporting a due process violation. Therefore, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to

amend in order for Plaintiffs "to state a claim for a due process violation based on the a [sic] change

in conditions between Grade A and Grade B status that they contend constitute an atypical and

significant hardship." (Mar. 31, 2005 Order at 3.)

On May 3, 2005, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a second amended

complaint on May 15, 2006.

Upon reviewing Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, the Court determined that Plaintiffs

were challenging the constitutionality of the Consent Decree that is at issue in a pending class action

suit, Thompson v. Enomoto, Case No. 79-1630 WHA (PR).2

 In an Order dated February 8, 2007,

the Court dismissed the instant action upon finding that, even if Plaintiffs' claim alleged a due

process violation based on the Consent Decree, such allegations must be addressed in the class

action suit.3

Plaintiffs have now filed a motion to reconsider under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure (docket no. 29). Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the

following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the Court's decision;

(3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any

other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). "Rule 60(b) [] provides a mechanism for parties to seek relief from a judgment

when 'it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application,' or when there

Case 4:03-cv-03761-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 10
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

is any other reason justifying relief from the judgment." Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853-

54 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the

grounds justifying relief are extraordinary. Mere dissatisfaction with the Court's order, or belief that

the Court is wrong in its decision, are not grounds for relief under subparagraph (6) or any other

provision of Rule 60(b). "'[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening

change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or

prevent manifest injustice.'" Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5

(9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir.

1970)).

The Court finds nothing in Plaintiffs' allegations in their motion to reconsider that merits

reconsideration. In their motion to reconsider, Plaintiffs seem to be challenging the Court's

dismissal by alleging that "[t]he dismissal of this case was in error where this case was filed in 2003,

three years before the federal court granted class certification to the case the Court relied on to

dismiss this case." (Mot. to Recons. at 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiffs' argument is unavailing. 

Attached to Plaintiffs' motion is an Order dated October 4, 2006, granting class certification in the

Thompson/Lancaster case, which states:

For reasons lost in lore in this aged case, no class was ever certified, either before

or at the time the consent decree was entered in 1980. The district court and the Ninth

Circuit, however, "treated" the case as a representative class action, according to

plaintiffs' counsel, although the extent to which various earlier judges on this case were

aware of the lapse is questionable. See, e.g., Thompson I, 542 F. Supp at 770 (applying

decree to new prisoners since entry of consent decree); Order at 1 (Dec. 18, 1986 ); Order

Denying Defs.' Mot. for Reconsideration & Alternative Mot. for Stay at 6 (Jan. 29,

1987); Thompson III, 915 F.2d at 1389-90 (holding that decree applied to all condemned

prisoners housed at San Quentin).

(Oct. 4, 2006 Order in Case No. 79-1630 WHA (PR) at 9.) The fact that class certification was

granted in 2006 is not relevant because each of the members of the class are deemed a party to all of

the pleadings filed since, and including, the initial complaint. See generally, United States Parole

Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 404-05 n.11 (1980) (stating that class certification relates back

to the commencement of the action). The plaintiffs in Thompson/Lancaster filed their complaint in

1979, years before Plaintiffs in the instant case filed their action in 2003. Because the class

Case 4:03-cv-03761-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 10
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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.03\Pinholster3761.denyRECON.frm 4

certification in the Thompson/Lancaster case relates back to the commencement of the action,

Plaintiffs' argument that this Court erred in dismissing the instant action is without merit.

Plaintiffs' allegations present no grounds that warrant reconsideration; therefore, the Court

reaffirms its dismissal of their action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' request to reconsider is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider (docket no. 29) is DENIED. 

The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions, including Plaintiffs' request for judicial

notice (docket no. 30), and close the file.

This Order terminates Docket nos. 29 and 30.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2007 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-03761-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 4 of 10
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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.03\Pinholster3761.denyRECON.frm 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PINHOLSTER et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WOODFORD et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV03-03761 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on October 10, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Luis Maciel

K97700

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, Ca 94974

Scott Pinholster

#C87601

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

Dated: October 10, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:03-cv-03761-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 5 of 10
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

 A Consent Decree was entered into on October 23, 1980, which requires SQSP prison

officials to take a number of corrective actions in the housing, treatment and privileges afforded

condemned inmates. See Thompson v. Enomoto, Case No. 79-1630 SAW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23,

1980). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT LYNN PINHOLSTER 

and LUIS MACIEL,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

J. S. WOODFORD, et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-3761 SBA (PR) 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

RECONSIDER AND TERMINATING

PENDING MOTION

(Docket nos. 29, 30)

Plaintiffs Scott Lynn Pinholster and Luis Maciel, condemned state prisoners incarcerated at

San Quentin State Prison (hereinafter "SQSP"), filed the instant pro se civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs claim that their due process rights were violated by members of the

Institutional Review Committee when they were placed indefinitely on Grade B status as SQSP

death row inmates subject to the Thompson Consent Decree1 (hereinafter "Consent Decree") and

denied privileges without "meaningful review." Plaintiffs contend they remain in administrative

segregation on an indefinite basis. Plaintiffs seek damages as well as injunctive and declaratory

relief. 

On March 31, 2004, the Court reviewed the complaint and found that, liberally construed,

Plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to state a due process claim. The Court ordered Defendants to

file dispositive motions in this case. On June 1, 2004, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint

for failure to state a claim. On June 18, 2004, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion. 

In an Order dated March 31, 2005, the Court found that while Plaintiffs asserted facts

Case 4:03-cv-03761-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 6 of 10
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

 The plaintiffs in Thompson brought suit on July 6, 1979, alleging that the conditions of

confinement of condemned inmates at SQSP constituted cruel and unusual punishment and a denial

of due process, in violation of the state and federal constitutions. This twenty-eight-year-old case is

still pending at this time before the Honorable William H. Alsup, and it is now known as Lancaster

et al. v. Tilton, et al., Case No. 79-1630 WHA (PR).

3

 On March 7, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a document in the Thompson/Lancaster case entitled

"Pro Se Classmember's [sic] Motion for F.R.C.P. Rules 23(d) and 24(a) Application to Now

Intervene; Conflict of Interest; Notice of Court Ruling and Prior Complaint for Hearing in this Case

and Court."

2

sufficient to state a claim with regard to their conditions of confinement, they failed to allege those

facts supporting a due process violation. Therefore, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to

amend in order for Plaintiffs "to state a claim for a due process violation based on the a [sic] change

in conditions between Grade A and Grade B status that they contend constitute an atypical and

significant hardship." (Mar. 31, 2005 Order at 3.)

On May 3, 2005, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a second amended

complaint on May 15, 2006.

Upon reviewing Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, the Court determined that Plaintiffs

were challenging the constitutionality of the Consent Decree that is at issue in a pending class action

suit, Thompson v. Enomoto, Case No. 79-1630 WHA (PR).2

 In an Order dated February 8, 2007,

the Court dismissed the instant action upon finding that, even if Plaintiffs' claim alleged a due

process violation based on the Consent Decree, such allegations must be addressed in the class

action suit.3

Plaintiffs have now filed a motion to reconsider under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure (docket no. 29). Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the

following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the Court's decision;

(3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any

other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). "Rule 60(b) [] provides a mechanism for parties to seek relief from a judgment

when 'it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application,' or when there

Case 4:03-cv-03761-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 7 of 10
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

is any other reason justifying relief from the judgment." Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853-

54 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the

grounds justifying relief are extraordinary. Mere dissatisfaction with the Court's order, or belief that

the Court is wrong in its decision, are not grounds for relief under subparagraph (6) or any other

provision of Rule 60(b). "'[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening

change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or

prevent manifest injustice.'" Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5

(9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir.

1970)).

The Court finds nothing in Plaintiffs' allegations in their motion to reconsider that merits

reconsideration. In their motion to reconsider, Plaintiffs seem to be challenging the Court's

dismissal by alleging that "[t]he dismissal of this case was in error where this case was filed in 2003,

three years before the federal court granted class certification to the case the Court relied on to

dismiss this case." (Mot. to Recons. at 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiffs' argument is unavailing. 

Attached to Plaintiffs' motion is an Order dated October 4, 2006, granting class certification in the

Thompson/Lancaster case, which states:

For reasons lost in lore in this aged case, no class was ever certified, either before

or at the time the consent decree was entered in 1980. The district court and the Ninth

Circuit, however, "treated" the case as a representative class action, according to

plaintiffs' counsel, although the extent to which various earlier judges on this case were

aware of the lapse is questionable. See, e.g., Thompson I, 542 F. Supp at 770 (applying

decree to new prisoners since entry of consent decree); Order at 1 (Dec. 18, 1986 ); Order

Denying Defs.' Mot. for Reconsideration & Alternative Mot. for Stay at 6 (Jan. 29,

1987); Thompson III, 915 F.2d at 1389-90 (holding that decree applied to all condemned

prisoners housed at San Quentin).

(Oct. 4, 2006 Order in Case No. 79-1630 WHA (PR) at 9.) The fact that class certification was

granted in 2006 is not relevant because each of the members of the class are deemed a party to all of

the pleadings filed since, and including, the initial complaint. See generally, United States Parole

Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 404-05 n.11 (1980) (stating that class certification relates back

to the commencement of the action). The plaintiffs in Thompson/Lancaster filed their complaint in

1979, years before Plaintiffs in the instant case filed their action in 2003. Because the class

Case 4:03-cv-03761-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 8 of 10
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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.03\Pinholster3761.denyRECON.frm 4

certification in the Thompson/Lancaster case relates back to the commencement of the action,

Plaintiffs' argument that this Court erred in dismissing the instant action is without merit.

Plaintiffs' allegations present no grounds that warrant reconsideration; therefore, the Court

reaffirms its dismissal of their action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' request to reconsider is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider (docket no. 29) is DENIED. 

The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions, including Plaintiffs' request for judicial

notice (docket no. 30), and close the file.

This Order terminates Docket nos. 29 and 30.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2007 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-03761-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 9 of 10
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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.03\Pinholster3761.denyRECON.frm 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PINHOLSTER et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WOODFORD et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV03-03761 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on October 10, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Luis Maciel

K97700

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, Ca 94974

Scott Pinholster

#C87601

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

Dated: October 10, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:03-cv-03761-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/28/07 Page 10 of 10