Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06497/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06497-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Kernan
Defendant
Darryl E. Pugh
Plaintiff

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DARRYL E. PUGH, T15269, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT KERNAN, 

Defendant(s). 

Case No. 18-cv-06497-CRB (PR) 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF) in Soledad, California, 

has filed a pro se complaint for injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 compelling the Secretary 

of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to consider him eligible 

for “early parole consideration” under “Proposition 57.” ECF No. 1 (Compl.) at 5. 

DISCUSSION 

A. 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 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). 

B. Legal Claims 

Case 3:18-cv-06497-CRB Document 4 Filed 02/15/19 Page 1 of 4
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 Californi

a

In April 2001, plaintiff was sentenced to 31 years to life in state prison after a jury found 

him guilty of possession of cocaine base for sale and maintaining a place for narcotics activities, 

and the superior court found that he had two or more prior “strike” convictions. Plaintiff claims 

that “non-violent” three strikers like himself are eligible for early parole consideration under 

Proposition 57, but that CDCR unlawfully continues to exclude them. He seeks an order 

compelling CDCR to consider him eligible for early parole consideration under Proposition 57. 

California’s Proposition 57, approved by voters in November 2016, makes parole more 

available for certain felons convicted of nonviolent crimes. Specifically, Proposition 57 added 

Article I, section 32 to the California Constitution. That section provides, in relevant part, “Parole 

consideration: Any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison 

shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term of his or her primary 

offense,” defined for these purposes as “the longest term of imprisonment imposed by the court 

for any offense, excluding the imposition of an enhancement, consecutive sentence, or alternative 

sentence.” Cal. Const., art. I, § 32(a)(1). 

Proposition 57 only provides a prisoner who has completed his base term with a parole 

consideration hearing before the California Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). California state 

court cases addressing application of Proposition 57 “uniformly state that Proposition 57 creates a 

mechanism for parole consideration, not a vehicle for resentencing, and does not entitle [a 

prisoner] to seek relief in court in the first instance.” Daniels v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 

No. 17-cv-01510-AWI-BAM, 2018 WL 489155, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2018); see also Travers 

v. California, No. 17-cv-06126-SI, 2018 WL 707546, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2018) (citing 

California state court cases). After all, the plain language of Article I, section 32 provides that a 

person is “eligible for parole consideration.” Cal. Const., art. I, § 32(a)(1). 

It is unclear whether excluding a state prisoner from early parole consideration under 

Proposition 57 because he was sentenced under California’s Three Strikes Law implicates a 

protected liberty interest entitled to procedural protections under the Due Process Clause. But the 

court need not decide the issue because the California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in In re 

Edwards, 26 Cal. App. 5th 1181 (2018), moots plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. In In re 

Edwards, the state appellate court held that CDCR regulations adopted to implement Proposition 

57 “impermissibly circumscribe eligibility for Proposition 57 parole by barring relief for [plaintiff] 

and other similarly situated inmates serving Three Strikes sentences for nonviolent offenses.” 26 

Cal. App. 5th at 1192. The court voided the regulations that have excluded prisoners serving 

Three Strike sentences for nonviolent offenses from early parole consideration under Proposition 

Case 3:18-cv-06497-CRB Document 4 Filed 02/15/19 Page 2 of 4
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 Californi

a

57, see id., and CDCR has since enacted emergency regulations “‘to allow inmates who are 

incarcerated for a term of life with the possibility of parole for nonviolent offenses to be eligible 

for parole consideration by the Board of Parole Hearings,’” Hughey v. Kernan, No. 18-cv-00313-

WQH-BGS, 2019 WL 329535, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2019) (quoting 1-Z Cal. Regulatory 

Notice Reg. 43 (Jan. 4, 2019) (https://oal.ca.gov/wp-content/ uploads/sites/ 166/2019/01/1z2019.pdf)). Put simply, the regulations that have excluded plaintiff from eligibility for early 

parole consideration under Proposition 57 are no longer operative. Id. 

In view of In re Edwards and CDCR’s subsequent enactment of revised emergency 

regulations to permit plaintiff and other prisoners serving Three Strikes sentences for nonviolent 

offenses to be eligible for early parole consideration under Proposition 57, plaintiff’s action for 

injunctive relief under § 1983 compelling CDCR to consider him eligible for early parole 

consideration must be dismissed is moot. See id. (citing Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (claim moot when issues presented are no longer live or parties lack legally cognizable 

interest in outcome)). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s action for injunctive relief under § 1983 is 

DIMISSED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 15, 2019 

______________________________________ 

CHARLES R. BREYER 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-06497-CRB Document 4 Filed 02/15/19 Page 3 of 4
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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DARRYL E. PUGH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT KERNAN, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:18-cv-06497-CRB 

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 February 15, 2019, 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. 

Darryl E. Pugh ID: T-15269 (FW211L)

Correctional Training Facility

P.O. Box 689 

Soledad, CA 93960-0689 

Dated: February 15, 2019 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable CHARLES R. BREYER 

Case 3:18-cv-06497-CRB Document 4 Filed 02/15/19 Page 4 of 4