Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03066/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03066-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEAN A. SCHWARTZMILLER, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

L. SMITH, Sheriff; CAPTAIN

WONG, Commander; JOHN or JANE

DOE 1-6; SERGEANT SPAGL and

SANTA CLARA COUNTY,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3066 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

On July 28, 2005, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. On April 27, 2006, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint with leave

to amend within thirty days directing Plaintiff to file separate complaints for any claims

that were not properly joined (docket no. 14). On May 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed two

amended complaints (docket no. 17), one of which this Court ordered the Clerk to file by

as a separate complaint (docket no. 18). This order serves the amended complaint filed

in this case, as set forth below. 

ANALYSIS

I Standard of Review

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 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

Case 3:05-cv-03066-JSW Document 19 Filed 11/29/06 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 2

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). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

II Legal Claims

A. Classification and Conditions Claims

In his first, second and third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that on June 7, 2005,

he was initially placed in the general population of protective custody. He alleges that on

June 17, 2005, he was reclassified without any notice or hearing to “ultra PC” where he

has no exercise and is placed in chains, handcuffs and leg shackles whenever he is

removed from his cell. He further alleges that on December 17, 2005, he was again

reclassified to “maximum security punitive status” without any notice or hearing. He

contends that the conditions there were such that he was confined to his cell 24 hours per

day, was not provided any recreation and is chained, shackled and handcuffed behind his

back whenever he leaves his cell. 

Changes in conditions so severe as to affect the sentence imposed in an

unexpected manner implicate the Due Process Clause itself, whether or not they are

authorized by state law. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Deprivations

authorized by state law that are less severe or more closely related to the expected terms

of confinement may also amount to deprivations of a procedurally protected liberty

interest, provided that (1) state statutes or regulations narrowly restrict the power of

prison officials to impose the deprivation, i.e. give the inmate a kind of right to avoid it,

Case 3:05-cv-03066-JSW Document 19 Filed 11/29/06 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 3

and (2) the liberty in question is one of "real substance." See id. at 477-87. In Wilkinson

v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 223-25 (2005), the Supreme Court held that indefinite placement

in Ohio’s “supermax” facility, where inmates are not eligible for parole consideration,

imposes an “atypical and significant hardship within the correctional context.” 

The Ninth Circuit has not addressed the question whether state statutes and

regulations governing administrative segregation in the California county jails create a

liberty interest in freedom from administrative segregation. California Code of

Regulations, title 15 § 1053 provides that each administrator of a local detention facility

shall develop written policies and procedures which provide for the administrative

segregation of inmates who are determined to be prone to escape, prone to assault staff or

other inmates, or likely to need protection from other inmates, if such administrative

segregation is determined to be necessary in order to obtain the objective of protecting

the welfare of inmates and staff. Such segregation shall consist of separate and secure

housing, but shall not involve any other deprivation of privileges than is necessary to

obtain the objective of protecting the inmates and staff. Id. § 1053. Arguably, this

language, in conjunction with a deprivation of "real substance," would create a liberty

interest in freedom from administrative segregation under Sandin. As such, Plaintiff’s

claims regarding his two reclassifications will be served.

Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to allege any substantial acts of

retaliation, or any link between the classification committee’s knowledge of his legal

activity and a threat by the individual[s] effecting his cell move to confiscate his legal

property, this aspect of Plaintiff’s second cause of action will be dismissed. Retaliation

is not established simply by showing adverse activity by defendant after protected

speech; rather, plaintiff must show a nexus between the two. See Huskey v. City of San

Jose, 204 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir. 2000) (retaliation claim cannot rest on the logical

fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, i.e., "after this, therefore because of this"). 

Moreover, exercise is one of the basic human necessities protected by the Eighth

Case 3:05-cv-03066-JSW Document 19 Filed 11/29/06 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 4

Amendment. See LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1457 (9th Cir. 1993); Toussaint v.

Rushen, 553 F. Supp. 1365, 1380 (N.D. Cal. 1983), aff'd in part and vacated in part, 722

F.2d 1490 (9th Cir. 1984). Some form of regular exercise, including outdoor exercise,

"is extremely important to the psychological and physical well-being" of prisoners. See

Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199 (9th Cir. 1979). Prison officials therefore may not

deprive prisoners of regular exercise. See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F. Supp. 1388,

1393 (N.D. Cal. 1984). Prisoners "confined to continuous and long-term segregation"

may not be deprived of outdoor exercise. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089-90

(9th Cir. 1996), amended, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998). 

B. Access to Courts

Plaintiff alleges that on June 23, 2005, he was served with an eviction complaint

by Defendant Spagl, which required a response within five days. Plaintiff contends that

during the subsequent five day period, he was only allowed out of his cell for one half

hour and denied access to a telephone to contact legal assistance, his mail request for

legal assistance was not sent out and he was informed that he had no right to access the

law library because he was not representing himself on a criminal matter. He contends

that he lost his personal property as a result of his inability to access the courts to

respond to this eviction proceeding.

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey,

518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To establish a

claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must prove that

there was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access program that caused him an actual

injury. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-55. As such, Plaintiff’s claim will be served. 

C. Mail

Plaintiff alleges that mail clerks at the jail have deprived him of his mail, without

providing him of notice that certain items have been rejected. Prisoners enjoy a First

Amendment right to send and receive mail. See Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th

Case 3:05-cv-03066-JSW Document 19 Filed 11/29/06 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 5

Cir. 1995) (citing Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989)). Prisoners also have

a liberty interest in the receipt of mail which triggers procedural due process guarantees. 

Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692, 696-967 (9th Cir. 2003). If prison officials withhold mail, a

prisoner has due process right to receive notice that his incoming mail is being withheld. 

See Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 353-54 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Prison Legal

News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1152-53 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that due process rights

apply to withheld mail where prisoners had constitutionally protected right to receive the

mail). As such, Plaintiff’s fifth claim will be served. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

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

shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint and all attachments

thereto with all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Defendants: L. Smith,

Sheriff, Captain Wong, Commander, and Sergeant Spagl at the Santa Clara County

Jail; and Santa Clara County. The Clerk shall also 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 sixty (60) days from the date of this order, Defendants

shall either file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, or a notice

to the Court that they are of the opinion that this matter cannot be resolved by dispositive

motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall

conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. All papers filed with the

Court shall be promptly served on the Plaintiff.

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

Court and served on Defendants no later than thirty (30) days from the date Defendants’

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

Plaintiff:

Case 3:05-cv-03066-JSW Document 19 Filed 11/29/06 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 6

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 the

defendant's 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 in favor of defendants, your case will be

dismissed and there will be no trial.

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) (holding party opposing summary

judgment must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on

every essential element of his claim). 

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

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. 

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

granted. However, the party making the 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

received. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than five days prior

Case 3:05-cv-03066-JSW Document 19 Filed 11/29/06 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 7

to the deadline sought to be extended.

5. 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.

6. 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 29, 2006

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03066-JSW Document 19 Filed 11/29/06 Page 7 of 7