David Portillo, Petitioner-appellant, v. James Gomez, Dir. Dept. of Corr., Respondent-appellee, 85 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 1996)
Annotate this CaseBefore: BROWNING, REINHARDT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
California state prisoner David Portillo appeals pro se the district court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was improperly placed in administrative segregation for an indefinite term because he was determined to be an associate of the Mexican mafia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992), and we affirm in part, vacate in part and remand.1
The district court dismissed Portillo's claims pursuant to section 1915(d) because a prior state court judgment was rendered on allegedly similar claims. Our review of the record, however, only discloses that a state court judgment was rendered on Portillo's claim that he was improperly designated a gang member. Because we cannot determine whether all of Portillo's claims should be precluded, we vacate and remand this action for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel is denied
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
