Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00562/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00562-1/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

Order of Partial Service and Addressing Pending Motions

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Stearns562.partialservice.ECK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SCOTT STEARNS, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

PHILLIP FLORES, et al,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-0562 JF (PR)

ORDER OF PARTIAL SERVICE AND

ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS

(Docket nos. 36, 42, 44, 45, 47, 49)

Plaintiff originally filed a civil rights action in the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California (Stearns v. Flores, et al., CV-F-00-6331 AWI SMS P),

challenging his initial validation in April 1999 as a gang member by prison officials at

Corcoran State Prison (CSP), and, in 2002, his subsequent revalidation as a gang member

and classification as a Security Housing Unit (SHU) inmate by prison officials at Pelican

Bay State Prison (PBSP). In an order dated February 3, 2003, Magistrate Judge Snyder of

the Eastern District ordered all claims against PBSP Defendants severed and transferred

to this Court. In response to that order, the present action was filed in this Court on

February 10, 2003 (Stearns v. Flores, et al., C 03-0562 JF). On September 15, 2004, the

Case 5:03-cv-00562-JF Document 51 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Order of Partial Service and Addressing Pending Motions

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Stearns562.partialservice.ECK

2

Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend, to include only those claims

relating to the incidents at PBSP and the Defendants involved in the PBSP claims. Over

the course of the following four months, Plaintiff submitted three proposed amended

complaints. In an order dated September 16, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion

to file the proposed amended complaint submitted on February 7, 2005. For purposes of

this action, that document is the operative complaint (docket no. 26) and is the subject of

this order. 

The complaint restates the allegations underlying all of Plaintiff's claims

challenging his initial validation as a gang member at CSP, and the denial of his

administrative appeals challenging the validation by CSP and California Department of

Corrections (CDC) officials. The complaint also alleges claims based on Plaintiff's

challenges to his revalidation as a gang member and his classification status as an SHU

inmate by PBSP prison officials in 2002, and the denial of his administrative appeals

challenging those decisions by PBSP and CDC officials. Based on the previous orders

issued by the Eastern District and this Court, the only claims properly at issue in this

action are those against the named PBSP Defendants and the CDC officials who reviewed

Plaintiff's appeals of the decisions made by the PBSP Defendants. However, the Court's

review of the complaint reveals that those claims are inextricably intertwined with

Plaintiff's claims against the CSP Defendants and CDC officials who reviewed Plaintiff's

appeals of the decisions made by the CSP Defendants. 

This is made eminently clear by the proceedings in Plaintiff's still-pending action

in the Eastern District, of which this Court takes judicial notice. Most importantly, in an

order dated August 30, 2005 in that action, Judge Ishii adopted in full the

recommendations of Magistrate Judge Snyder that summary judgment be granted in favor

of the CSP Defendants on Plaintiff's due process claims challenging his gang validation. 

(See Stearns v. Flores, et al., CV-F-00-6331 AWI SMS P, Docket nos. 302, 312.) The

order appears to address both of the gang validation decisions (that is, the 1999 CSP

Case 5:03-cv-00562-JF Document 51 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 7
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

Order of Partial Service and Addressing Pending Motions

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Stearns562.partialservice.ECK

3

decision and the 2002 PBSP decision), and concludes that Plaintiff's right to due process

was not violated because in each case he received notice and a hearing, and each decision

was based upon sufficient reliable evidence. The order does not expressly address the

issue of Plaintiff's SHU housing classification at PBSP based on his revalidation as a

gang member.

Thus, as a threshold matter, it appears that a final judgment on the merits of

Plaintiff's due process claim challenging his gang revalidation by prison officials at PBSP

in 2002, and the subsequent denial of his administrative appeals challenging that decision

by PBSP and CDC officials, has been issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that

this claim is therefore barred from further litigation under the doctrine of res judicata. 

However, the preclusive effect, if any, of the prior decision on Plaintiff's wrongful

classification claim is not as readily apparent.

This court may examine the preclusive effect of a prior judgment sua sponte. See

Hawkins v. Risley, 984 F.2d 321, 324 (9th Cir. 1993); McClain v. Apodaca, 793 F.2d

1031, 1032-33 (9th Cir. 1986). Therefore, in the interests of justice and good cause

appearing, the Court will order the parties to address this question as an initial matter. In

order to do so, the Court does not find it necessary, nor an efficient use of resources, to

order served the myriad Defendants whom Plaintiff names in the complaint. Rather, at

this juncture in the proceedings, the Court will order the complaint served only on

Defendant G. Wise, who made the decision to revalidate Plaintiff as a gang member in

2002, and Defendant R. Kirkland, who apparently made the decision to continue

Plaintiff's SHU housing classification based on the revalidation, and who ultimately

denied Plaintiff's appeals of both the revalidation and classification matters at the second

level of PBSP review. If Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants, who made the initial

decisions which precipitated Plaintiff's administrative appeals, are barred by the prior

judgment, the claims against all PBSP and CDC officials who denied the administrative

appeals of those decisions will be subject to dismissal by the Court under 28 U.S.C. §

Case 5:03-cv-00562-JF Document 51 Filed 09/11/06 Page 3 of 7
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

Order of Partial Service and Addressing Pending Motions

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Stearns562.partialservice.ECK

4

1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the

Court will review the claims against all Defendants other than Wise and Kirkland only

after the res judicata question has been resolved.

Plaintiff has filed several procedural motions which are pending before the Court. 

In one, he asks the Court to stay further proceedings in this matter until his Eighth

Amendment claims which are pending in the Eastern District proceed to trial. Because

the trial date noted by Plaintiff has passed, this motion is DENIED as moot. (Docket no.

36.) Moreover, even if the trial has not yet occurred, the Court sees no need to delay

further an initial assessment of Plaintiff's due process claims, which do not appear to be

intertwined in any procedurally relevant way with Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims

against CSP Defendants. 

Also on the docket is a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which

Plaintiff also apparently filed with the Ninth Circuit. The relevance of this motion to the

current proceedings is unclear. Plaintiff already has been granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis in this action (docket no. 8), and does not appear to currently have an

appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as

unnecessary. (Docket no. 42.)

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in which he states that

a Correctional Counselor at PBSP told him that she had not received an envelope from

him, apparently attached to a "kite" (that is, a note from an inmate), which contained

important personal information which Plaintiff alleges can be used to harm him. Based

upon these limited facts, the Court concludes that this matter is the proper subject of an

administrative appeal, which Plaintiff states he is pursuing, not a temporary restraining

order. Accordingly, this motion is DENIED. (Docket no. 44.)

Plaintiff also has filed a motion for an internal affairs investigation. The decision

whether to order such an investigation falls under the purview of prison officials. Should

the Court find that further factual development on any issue is required during the course

Case 5:03-cv-00562-JF Document 51 Filed 09/11/06 Page 4 of 7
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

Order of Partial Service and Addressing Pending Motions

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Stearns562.partialservice.ECK

5

of these proceedings, it will so order in accord with the proper rules of procedure. 

Accordingly, this motion is DENIED. (Docket no. 45.)

Plaintiff asks the Court to order the United States Marshal to serve his complaint. 

This motion is GRANTED in part, as set forth above. (Docket no. 47.)

Finally, Plaintiff moves to amend an error in a declaration. This motion is

GRANTED. (Docket no. 49.) 

CONCLUSION AND RULINGS

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summonses and the United States Marshal

shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the amended complaint in this matter

(docket no. 26), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order on Defendants G. Wise

and R. Kirkland at Pelican Bay State Prison. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this

order on Plaintiff. 

2. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Not later than sixty (60) days from the date of their answer, Defendants

may file a motion to dismiss addressing the question whether Plaintiff's claims are barred

under the doctrine of res judicata. If Defendants are of the opinion that neither of

Plaintiff's claims is so barred, they shall so inform the Court on or before the date the

motion to dismiss is due.

All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on Plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff's opposition to any motion to dismiss shall be filed with the Court and

served upon Defendants not later than sixty (60) days from the date Defendants' motion

is filed. 

4. Defendants shall file a reply brief not later than twenty (20) days after

Plaintiff's opposition is filed. 

5. 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. 

Case 5:03-cv-00562-JF Document 51 Filed 09/11/06 Page 5 of 7
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

Order of Partial Service and Addressing Pending Motions

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Stearns562.partialservice.ECK

6

6. 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.

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

Court and the 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 for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

8. Extensions of time are not favored, although reasonable extensions will be

granted. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed not later than ten (10) days

prior to the deadline sought to be extended.

9. The following motions are DENIED: docket numbers 36, 42, 44 and 45.

10. Plaintiff's motion for service is GRANTED in part. (Docket no. 47.)

11. Plaintiff's motion to amend his declaration is GRANTED. (Docket no. 49.)

This order terminates docket numbers 36, 42, 44, 45, 47 and 49.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-00562-JF Document 51 Filed 09/11/06 Page 6 of 7
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

Order of Partial Service and Addressing Pending Motions

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Stearns562.partialservice.ECK

This is to certify that on a copy of this order was mailed to the

following:

Scott Stearns

J-61801

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95531

Gary Wise

Pelican Bay State Prison

5905 Lake Earl Drive

Crescent City, CA 95531-7000

R. Kirkland

Pelican Bay State Prison

5905 Lake Earl Drive

Crescent City, CA 95531-7000

Case 5:03-cv-00562-JF Document 51 Filed 09/11/06 Page 7 of 7