Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01129/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01129-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
B. Hedricks
Defendant
R. Martinez
Defendant
Ryant Trimale Pratt
Plaintiff
V. Solis
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYANT TRIMALE PRATT,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. HEDRICKS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-01129-JD 

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed an amended 

complaint.

DISCUSSION

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). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1990).

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.” Although 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 

Case 3:16-cv-01129-JD Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 7
2

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

Northern District of California

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, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations 

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 

standard of Twombly: “While 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, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that he was improperly found guilty at a prison disciplinary hearing. The 

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects prisoners from being deprived of life, 

liberty, or property without due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). 

The procedural guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses apply 

only when a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest is at stake. See Ingraham v. 

Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 672-73 (1977). Liberty interests can arise both from the Constitution and 

from state law. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 

466 (1983). The Due Process Clause itself does not confer on inmates a liberty interest in 

avoiding “more adverse conditions of confinement.” Id. The Due Process Clause itself does not 

confer on inmates a liberty interest in being confined in the general prison population instead of 

administrative segregation. See Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 466-68.

With respect to liberty interests arising from state law, the existence of a liberty interest 

created by prison regulations is determined by focusing on the nature of the deprivation. Sandin

v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 481-84 (1995). Liberty interests created by prison regulations are 

limited to freedom from restraint which “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate 

in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 484. When conducting the Sandin

Case 3:16-cv-01129-JD Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 7
3

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

Northern District of California

inquiry, Courts should look to Eighth Amendment standards as well as the prisoners’ conditions of 

confinement, the duration of the sanction, and whether the sanctions will affect the length of the 

prisoners’ sentence. See Serrano, 345 F.3d at 1078. The placement of an inmate in the SHU 

indeterminately may amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest of “real substance” within the 

meaning of Sandin. See Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 224.

The Supreme Court has established five procedural requirements for disciplinary hearings. 

See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 539. First, “written notice of the charges must be given to the disciplinaryaction defendant in order to inform him of the charges and to enable him to marshal the facts and 

prepare a defense.” Id. at 564. Second, “at least a brief period of time after the notice, no less 

than 24 hours, should be allowed to the inmate to prepare for the appearance before the 

[disciplinary committee].” Id. Third, “there must be a ‘written statement by the factfinders as to 

the evidence relied on and reasons’ for the disciplinary action.” Id. (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 

408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)). Fourth, “the inmate facing disciplinary proceedings should be allowed 

to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when permitting him to do so 

will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.” Id. at 566. Fifth, 

“[w]here an illiterate inmate is involved . . . or where the complexity of the issues makes it 

unlikely that the inmate will be able to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate 

comprehension of the case, he should be free to seek the aid of a fellow inmate, or . . . to have 

adequate substitute aid . . . from the staff or from a[n] . . . inmate designated by the staff.” Id. at 

570. The Court specifically held that the Due Process Clause does not require that prisons allow 

inmates to cross-examine their accusers, see id. at 567-68, and does not give rise to a right to 

counsel in the proceedings, see id. at 569-70. 

In Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985), the Court held that the revocation of 

good-time credits does not comport with the minimum requirements of procedural due process in 

Wolff unless the findings of the prison disciplinary board are supported by some evidence in the 

record. The standard for the modicum of evidence required is met if there was some evidence 

from which the conclusion of the administrative tribunal could be deduced. See id. at 455. 

Plaintiff states that he was improperly found guilty of committing a battery on another 

Case 3:16-cv-01129-JD Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 3 of 7
4

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

Northern District of California

inmate resulting in serious bodily injury. It is unknown if plaintiff lost good time credits as 

punishment, but he states he was placed in the Security Housing Unit for 15 months. Plaintiff also 

states there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty and defendants neglected to view his 

evidence. It is unclear if he was not allowed to present his evidence, or defendants chose not to 

credit it. Regardless, for purposes of screening, plaintiff has stated cognizable claims against 

defendants Hedrick, Solis and Martinez that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty and 

that he was not allowed to present his evidence.

CONCLUSION

1. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint with attachments and copies of this order on the 

following defendants: Chief Deputy Warden B. Hedrick, Captain V. Solis and Lieutenant R. 

Martinez all at Salinas Valley State Prison.

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:

a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, defendant shall file a 

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by 

adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the 

events at issue. If defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary 

judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior to the date his summary judgment motion is due. All 

papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on the plaintiff.

b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendant shall also serve, on a 

separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-

954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003). 

See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand and Wyatt notices must be 

given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss for nonexhaustion is filed, 

not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement). 

c. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with 

the Court and served upon defendant no later than thirty days from the date the motion was served 

Case 3:16-cv-01129-JD Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 4 of 7
5

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

Northern District of California

upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is 

provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), 

and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

If defendant files a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff failed to exhaust 

his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff should take 

note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),” which is provided 

to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).

d. If defendant wishes to file a reply brief, he shall do so no later than fifteen 

days after the opposition is served upon him. 

e. 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. 

3. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendant, or 

defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 

defendants or defendants’ counsel.

4. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

No further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the 

parties may conduct discovery.

5. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 

Change of Address.” He also 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 18, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01129-JD Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 5 of 7
6

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

Northern District of California

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking 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, your case will be 

dismissed and there will be no trial. 

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, they are seeking 

to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.

You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that you did 

exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of declarations 

(statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that is, documents 

accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they are authentic, or other 

sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions. 

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust and it is granted, 

your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

Case 3:16-cv-01129-JD Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 6 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYANT TRIMALE PRATT,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. HEDRICKS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01129-JD 

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 November 18, 2016, 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.

Ryant Trimale Pratt ID: H-06191

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960 

Dated: November 18, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:16-cv-01129-JD Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 7 of 7