STEVEN KAULICK V. MARTINEZ; ET AL, No. 11-15213 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 03 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVEN J. KAULICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-15213 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02611-GEBKJN v. MARTINEZ; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees, and M. MARTEL, Warden; SUPERIOR COURT OF AMADOR COUNTY; PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Argued and Submitted September 12, 2013 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, ** Chief District Judge. California state prisoner Steven J. Kaulick appeals from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of an allegedly improper R suffix designation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. A district court s dismissal of a claim based on a statute of limitations is reviewed de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). Any claim based on the original 2001 designation is clearly time-barred. Moreover, any claim based on the 2006 decision is also time-barred to the extent that the 2006 decision was a delayed, but inevitable, consequence of the original [2001 designation]. Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568, 581 (9th Cir. 2012). Even if the 2006 decision were an independent and discrete act, Kaulick s claim must fail. If the Unit Classification Committee finds that an inmate may no longer require an R suffix, the committee refers the case to the Institution ** The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. 2 Classification Committee ( ICC ) for review. See 15 C.C.R. § 3377.1(b)(6). Once referred to the ICC for review, the ICC can reverse an R suffix only if new and compelling information is obtained. See Id. § 3377.1(b)(8). In light of this exceedingly narrow standard, Kaulick cannot prevail on his due process challenge because he did not obtain new and compelling information which would have permitted a reversal of his status. For these reasons, the district court properly dismissed this action. AFFIRMED. 3

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.