University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Castillo v. Alameida PC-CA-0047
Docket / Court 3:94-cv-02847 ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Special Collection California's Prisoners' Rights Bar article
Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
Solitary confinement
Case Summary
On August 9, 1994, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The prisoner sued the state of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by private counsel, he claimed that the process by which an inmate ... read more >
On August 9, 1994, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The prisoner sued the state of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by private counsel, he claimed that the process by which an inmate is identified as a prison gang member or associate was unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment and lacked due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. He also claimed that the physical conditions of the Security Housing Units (SHU) and the psychological effects of long-term SHU confinement violated the Eighth Amendment. Finally, he challenged his own gang validation, claiming it was the result of retaliation by prison officials for his jailhouse lawyering.

In 1996, the prisoner filed a second lawsuit in the Northern District of California against the California Department of Corrections, docket no. 3:96-cv-00682-MJJ. The documents in that lawsuit are not available to the Clearinghouse, so we don't know what the prisoner was challenging. He then moved to consolidate that lawsuit with this one, which had come first. On June 4, 1996, Judge Claudia Wilken granted the prisoner's motion to consolidate the two cases.

From 1995 to 2000, the parties litigated several motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. On May 1, 2001, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, which was granted in part and denied in part by the District Court (Judge Martin L. Jenkins) on June 19, 2002. The District Court granted summary judgment as to the Eighth Amendment claim regarding the physical conditions of the SHU, and denied it as to the First Amendment overbreadth and retaliation claims and the Eighth Amendment claim regarding the psychological effects of SHU confinement.

On January 5, 2004, the District Court (Judge Jenkins) partially granted another motion for summary judgment filed by defendants, finding no due process violation except to the extent that the prisoner was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard during the course of his initial validation. Further, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the remaining Eighth Amendment claim, finding no unconstitutional psychological effects of prolonged SHU confinement. The District Court again denied summary judgment with regard to the First Amendment overbreadth and retaliation claims.

The parties reached a settlement in 2004. The key result of the settlement was that a prisoner would not receive an indeterminate SHU term as a validated gang member or associate without first being found to be a current, active gang member or associate consistent with the procedural safeguards in the agreement, and that periodic reviews would be required to determine whether the prisoner remained an active gang member or associate. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) agreed to propose to codify the policy changes agreed upon in the California Code of Regulations and/or the Department Operations Manual (DOM).

Specifically, the settlement provided that, with regard to due process in validations and inactive reviews, the defendants would provide notice and the opportunity to be heard to every prisoner. To this end, the defendants agreed to provide 24-hour notice to each prisoner of the items being considered as part of the determination and to provide a written record of the prisoner's opinion of these items. Further, prison officials would be required to record an "articulable basis" that prisoners were engaging in criminal or unlawful acts on behalf of a prison gang and could not rely on confidential informants unless the informants detailed the exact nature of the prisoner's involvement, without the use of hearsay evidence. The settlement also included a "single source rule," where one gang-related incident could only count as one item of evidence even though it may be reported by multiple sources. Finally, the agreement provided that plaintiff's validation would be reviewed in accordance with the settlement.

After the settlement was filed with the District Court, the case was dismissed with prejudice on November 15, 2004. The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, however the plaintiff's counsel agreed to a set procedure for requesting future relief from the court. If the plaintiff's counsel believed that the defendants were not complying with the provisions of the settlement agreement to make policy changes, they would notify the defendants' counsel in writing, meet to discuss the issue, and only then could they ask the court for relief. This process would be unavailable once proposed changes to the policies described in the settlement agreement were internally finalized. No individual inmate can file for relief regarding an inmate's gang validation granted; individual inmate's concerns can only be raised by the plaintiff's counsel as examples of noncompliance. The defendants also agreed to pay $240,000 that would be divided up between the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorneys as attorneys' fees and costs.

In 2005, inmates began sending letters to the Court reporting violations of the settlement agreement. Inmates sent letters in 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012, but the Court has not responded to any of these letters or investigated the allegations.

Samantha Kirby - 10/06/2014
Jessica Kincaid - 10/30/2015


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Due Process
Freedom of speech/association
Content of Injunction
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Recordkeeping
Defendant-type
Corrections
General
Administrative segregation
Classification / placement
Conditions of confinement
Records Disclosure
Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) California
Plaintiff Description A prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2004 - n/a
Case Closing Year 2004
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
3:96−cv−00682 (N.D. Cal.) 06/01/2004
PC-CA-0047-9001.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
3:94­cv­2847 (N.D. Cal.) 01/05/2012
PC-CA-0047-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Settlement Agreement 10/13/2004
PC-CA-0047-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: Prison Legal News
Judges Chen, Edward Milton (N.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
PC-CA-0047-9000
Jenkins, Martin J. (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0047-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Carbone, Charles F.A. (California)
PC-CA-0047-0001 | PC-CA-0047-9000
Finberg, James M. (California)
PC-CA-0047-0001 | PC-CA-0047-9000
Kruse, Joy A. (California)
PC-CA-0047-0001
Noyes, Graham (California)
PC-CA-0047-0001 | PC-CA-0047-9000 | PC-CA-0047-9001
Defendant's Lawyers East, Rochelle C. (California)
PC-CA-0047-9000
Lee, Susan Duncan (California)
PC-CA-0047-9000
Sokoloff, Diann (California)
PC-CA-0047-9000
Valdez, Danette E. (California)
PC-CA-0047-9000
Walston, Gregory S. (California)
PC-CA-0047-9000
Wolff, Jonathan L. (California)
PC-CA-0047-0001 | PC-CA-0047-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -