Gonzales v. CDC, No. 11-15851 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, in custody of the CDC since 2004, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 asserting twenty actions stemming from his validation as a gang member. The court concluded that the district court properly determined that the claim-preclusive effect of California's denial of plaintiff's habeas petition barred nineteen of his twenty counts; the district court erred, however, by dismissing plaintiff's Eighth Amendment challenge to the debriefing process (process to renounce gang membership) for lack of standing where construed liberally, plaintiff's complaint alleged that he would attempt to debrief, which he is eligible to do, but for the risk of retaliation; and as the condition precedent to plaintiff's motion to amend was not met, the court reversed the district court's denial of that motion and remanded for reconsideration.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of a complaint in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by a California state prisoner who challenged his validation as a gang member and his transfer to a Secured Housing Unit for an indeterminate term, and remanded. The panel held that the district court properly concluded that the claim-preclusive effect of California’s denial of plaintiff’s habeas petition barred nineteen of plaintiff’s twenty causes of action. The panel further held, however, that the district court erred by dismissing plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment challenge to the debriefing process for lack of standing. “Debriefing” is the process by which validated gang members renounce their gang membership, divulge any gang-related information, and earn their release back into the prison’s general population. The panel held that construed liberally, plaintiff’s complaint alleged that he would attempt to debrief, which he was eligible to do, but for the risk of retaliation. The panel held that was sufficient to establish standing and reversed and remanded.
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.