N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ARLOS ALM EIDA,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C LAR K E. DUC AR T, W arde n; R . B ELL, Assista nt W arde n; D. GONGOR A; J. B EESON, Spe c ia l Age n t; R . B UR T, Spe c ia l Age nt; B . NEAL, C ounse lor,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-16302 D.C . No. 3:16-c v-02689-JD
M EM O R ANDUM * a nd OR D ER

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s Dona

to, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 9, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and B Y B EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd AR TER TON, * * Distric t Judge
. C arlos Alm e ida

a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s de nia l of his pro sefe d e ra l ha be a s pe tition, whic h a lle ge d tha t prison offic ia ls viola

te d his c onstitutiona

l rights 

# F IL ED
APR 24 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Ja ne t B ond Arte rton, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of C onne c tic u t, sitting by de signa tion.by

finding hewa s a

n in-prison ga

ng m e m be r and inc arc e rating him for four y e ars in a Se c urity Housing Unit (“ SHU” ). The distric t c ourt dismisse d Alm e ida ’ s pe tition, finding it ba

rre d by c la im pre c lusion be c a

use he ha d a lle ge d the sam e
c la im in a sta te ha be a s pe tition, whic h the sta te c ourt de nie d . All but one se nte nc e of the sta te c ourt’ s pa ge -an d -a -ha lf orde r de s c ribe d a ne w pilot progra

m in the prison tha t “ p rovide d for c a se -by -c a se c onside ra t ion . . . of pre viously va lida te d ga ng a ffilia te s for re le a se from SHU.” The one se n te nc e a ddre ssing them e rits of Alm e ida ’ s due proc e ss c la i m sta te d: “ In any

e ve nt, Pe titione r ha s not shown tha t his due proc e ss rights to c onside ra tion for re l e a se from SHU ha ve be e n infringe d.” On a p pe a l, Alm e ida

a sse rts tha

t the sta t e c o urt’ s de c ision wa s a

sum m ary de nia l,
and thus the distric t

c ourt e rre d in c onc luding it pre c lude d his fe de ra l c la im . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re v e rse an d re m an d for furthe r proc e e dings. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l ba s e d on c la im pre c lusion denovo. Furnac e v . Giurbino , 838 F.3d 1019, 1023 n.1 (9th C ir. 2016). “ C a l ifornia c la im pre c lusion la

w gove rns whe the r, in light of his e arlie r state ha be a s pe tition, [Alm e ida ’ s] § 1983 c la im s m ay be brought in fe de ra l c ourt.” Id. a t 1023. Unde r C a lifornia la w, “ the sum

m ary de nia l of a

ha be a s c orpus pe tition doe s not e sta blish la w of the c a se and doe s not ha ve a re s judic at a

e ffe c t in future proc e e dings.”
2Gome

z v . Supe rior C

o urt , 278 P.3d 1168, 1175 n.6 (C a l . 2012). “ B y im plic a tion, the n , re a sone d de nia ls of C a lifornia ha be a s pe t itions . . . do ha

ve c la im -pre c lusive
e ffe c t.” G onzale

s v . C al. De p’t of C orr. , 739 F.3d 1226, 1231 (9th C ir. 2014) (e m pha sis om itte d) (c iting Gome z , 278 P.3d a

t 1175 n.6). In finding Alm e ida ’ s
c la im pre c lude d, the distric t

c ourt did not addre ss whe the r the sta te c ourt de c ision
wa s “ sum m ary ” or “ re a sone d,” sta

ting only tha t “ [t] he supe rior c ourt c onside re d the e vide n c e and de nie d the pe t ition in a fina l judgm e n t

on the m e rits.” The sta te c ourt’ s orde r wa s a

sum m ary de n ia l. The c ourt’ s de s c ription of the prison’ s ne w pilot progra m wa s irre le va

nt to them e rits of Alm e i da ’ s due proc e ss
c la im , a nd its single -se n te nc e holding c onta ine d no e xpla nat ion for the de nia l. Se e K ow is v . How ard , 838 P.2d 250, 253 (C a l. 1992) (“ A short sta te m e nt or c ita

tion
e xpla ining theba sis for the sum m ary de nia l doe s not tra

nsform the de nia l into a de c ision of a

c a use e ntitle d to la

w of the c a s e e ffe c t.” ); Frisk v . Supe rior C ourt , 132 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 602, 612 (C t. App. 2011) (“ Sum m ary de nia ls . . . c om e with little
e xpla nation, if a

ny .” ). The re fore , the sta

te c ourt’ s de c i sion doe s not pre c lude Alm e ida from bringing his c la im

in fe de ra l c ourt. 1 RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

1 In light of this de c ision, we do not ne e d to a ddre ss Alm e ida ’ s a rgum e nts re ga rding privity

or le ave to a

m e nd, a nd we grant Alm e ida ’ s m o tion for judic ia l notic e . 3