On June 05, 2006, a California prisoner incarcerated at Centinela State Prison, proceeding pro-se, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the warden and two correctional officers, alleging violation of the plaintiff's constitutional ...
read more >
On June 05, 2006, a California prisoner incarcerated at Centinela State Prison, proceeding pro-se, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the warden and two correctional officers, alleging violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated the First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when they denied the plaintiff outdoor exercise for more than 11 months, did not allow him privileges that other inmates specifically received, and required him to sign a pledge form against his political beliefs.
On March 12, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the Eight Amendment claim on the grounds that the plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies. The defendant withdrew this motion on February 20, 2008.
The defendants moved for summary judgment on the First Amendment and Equal Protection claims on April 11, 2007 and for summary judgment on the Eight Amendment claim on August 7, 2008. Both motions were granted by the District Court (Judge Maxine M. Chesney) on February 24, 2009.
On March 11, 2009, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals (Judge Stephen Reinhardt) reversed the dismissal and remanded the case back to the District Court.
On June 2, 2011, the defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. On January 12, 2012, the District Court (Judge Maxine M. Chesney) denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief as moot due to him being transferred to another prison. The Court further referred the case to the federal Pro Bono Project for assignment of counsel for the plaintiff. On June 13, 2012, the parties settled and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed without prejudice pending payment of the settlement. On November 20, 2012, the Court entered a notification of satisfaction of settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. Anjali Biala - 10/11/2013