Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04660/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04660-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. Quinones
Defendant
Michael San Agustin
Plaintiff
A. K. Scribner
Defendant

Document Text:

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

MICHAEL SAN AGUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

A. K. SCRIBNER, Warden; A.

QUINONES, Institutional Gang

Investigator,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-4660 PJH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS AND DENYING THEIR

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AS MOOT;

DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Defendants have filed a

motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. In an earlier ruling the court granted

defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery and said that it would rule on the motion to

dismiss first, making discovery unnecessary at that time, and that the motion for summary

judgment would not be reached unless it were denied as moot. In that order plaintiff’s

motion for an extension of time to oppose the defendants’ motions was granted, but plaintiff

has not opposed the motion and the time to do so has expired.

For the reasons set out below, the motion to dismiss will be granted. Because it will

be granted and the complaint dismissed with leave to amend, the motion for summary

judgment will be denied as moot. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

Case 4:08-cv-04660-PJH Document 25 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 4
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

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65

(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief

that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1986-87. The United States Supreme Court has

recently explained that the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly means that “[w]hile

legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by

factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should

assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). 

In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, review is limited to the

contents of the complaint, Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir.

1994), including documents physically attached to the complaint or documents the

complaint necessarily relies on and whose authenticity is not contested. Lee v. County of

Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). In addition, the court may take judicial

notice of facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute. Id. at 688 (discussing Fed. R.

Evid. 201(b)). Allegations of fact in the complaint must be taken as true and construed in

the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Spreewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266

F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). The court need not, however, “accept as true allegations

that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” 

Id.

Case 4:08-cv-04660-PJH Document 25 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 4
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

II. Analysis

A. Injunctive Relief Claims

Defendants claim that plaintiff’s injunctive relief claims are barred by the statute of

limitations. They are correct, and plaintiff, who has not opposed the motion, has of course

provided no basis for avoiding the bar. The injunctive relief claims will be dismissed with

prejudice.

B. Defendant Scribner

As defendant Scribner contends, the complaint contains no facts alleging any

involvement by him in the alleged violations of plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff thus has failed to

state a claim against Scribner. 

C. Defendant Quinones

Plaintiff’s claims are that his gang validation was predetermined and based on

“bias,” that he did not receive proper notice of the gang validation charges, and that the

gang validation was not supported by sufficient evidence. Defendant Quinones was the

“IGI,” the Institutional Gang Investigator, who performed the validation.

 Quinones is correct that plaintiff alleges only that he did not receive adequate

notice of the confidential information upon which the validation was based, rather than that

he did not receive proper notice of the gang allegation itself. The Constitution requires only

notice of the charges, not the evidence upon which they may be based. See Hewitt v.

Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 476 (1983). Plaintiff has failed to state a claim that his due process

rights were violated by inadequate notice.

 As to the bias and predetermination claim, the facts alleged – that Quinones said in

a written note in the investigative file that plaintiff should be monitored for gang activity as a

result of having written to a known gang member, and that “a validation packet will be

submitted to [higher authorities] upon completion” – are not sufficient to make it plausible

that Quinones had predetermined the issue. It was reasonable for him to expect to submit

a validation packet to those who would decide if plaintiff were a gang member, given the

evidence already developed, as was the suggestion that plaintiff should be monitored for

Case 4:08-cv-04660-PJH Document 25 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 4
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

gang activity. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim that Quinones had predetermined his guilt.

Finally, plaintiff’s own contentions in the complaint show that “some evidence”

supported the decision, given that the complaint and the exhibits submitted in support of it

describe several source items to support the validation; plaintiff contends that all of the

items have weaknesses as evidence, but this does not prevent them from meeting the

minimal “some evidence” standard. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985)

(“some evidence” standard is “minimal”). 

For the above reasons, the motion to dismiss will be granted. The dismissal will be

with leave to amend, because plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts that would

state a claim. The motion for summary judgment, which is directed to the complaint that is

dismissed in this order, will be denied as moot. 

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (document number 9 on the docket) is GRANTED. 

The injunctive relief claims are DISMISSED with prejudice; the other claims are

DISMISSED with leave to amend Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (document 9)

is DENIED as moot.

If plaintiff wishes to amend, he shall file an amended complaint on the court’s form

for prisoner section 1983 claims within thirty days of the date this order is entered. It must

carry the docket number of this case and the words “Amended Complaint” on the first page,

so it is not mistaken for an attempt to file a new case. The amended complaint completely

replaces the original complaint, so it must contain all claims plaintiff wishes to present. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Failure to file an amended

complaint within the time allowed will result in dismissal of the entire case without further

leave to amend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.08\SANAGUSTIN4660.motion to dismiss.wpd

Case 4:08-cv-04660-PJH Document 25 Filed 03/17/10 Page 4 of 4