Andrews v. Martinez
4:17-cv-04363
N.D. Cal.Sep 27, 2019Background
- Plaintiff David Andrews, a California state prisoner serving 15-to-life for second-degree murder, sued BPH and CDCR staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged due process violations at his parole hearings in 2015–2016 (especially Sept. 8, 2016).
- He alleged his central file contained false, inaccurate, and incomplete information that was relied on to deny parole and that staff obstructed his ability to submit and have considered documentary evidence and rebuttals.
- The magistrate/court previously screened and allowed due-process claims against several defendants; some defendants and claims were dismissed at screening (e.g., attorney Christensen dismissed for lack of state action).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment (raising Eleventh Amendment, Heck, immunity, and merits defenses); Andrews cross-moved. The district court held oral-records and declarations (hearing transcripts, CRA, filings) established the procedural record.
- The court granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiff’s motion: official-capacity monetary claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment; on the merits the court found Andrews received the minimal process required for parole decisions (notice, opportunity to be heard, statement of reasons) and failed to identify nonconclusory proof that false records were relied on to deny parole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment — official-capacity monetary damages | Andrews sought money from officials in official capacities | State agencies and officials are immune from §1983 monetary suits | Official-capacity monetary claims dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment |
| Existence of a state-created liberty interest in parole | California law creates a liberty interest entitling Andrews to due process at parole hearings | Parole scheme creates a state interest but only requires minimal procedures | Court assumed California creates a liberty interest but applied minimal-procedure standard |
| Procedural due process (opportunity to be heard; access to records; submit evidence) | Andrews says he was blocked from submitting/including documents and rebutting false file entries | Record shows notice, opportunities to review file, submit documents, multiple hearings/postponements, and a multi-hour Sept. 8, 2016 hearing where he spoke at length | No due process violation: Andrews received notice, chance to be heard, to present documents, and the panel stated reasons for denial (Swarthout standard) |
| Alleged reliance on false/inaccurate records | Andrews claims false/inaccurate file entries were used to deny parole but offers only conclusory assertions | Defendants note Andrews did not identify specific false items actually relied upon; hearing record cites other grounds for denial | Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine factual dispute that false records were relied upon; summary judgment for defendants on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (maintenance of inaccurate records alone does not state a constitutional injury)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interests may arise from state law in certain circumstances)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011) (parole procedures require only opportunity to be heard and statement of reasons)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (no constitutional right to parole, but state statutes can create parole expectations requiring due process)
- Bd. of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987) (mandatory parole-language can create a liberty interest)
- McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2002) (California parole scheme gives rise to a cognizable liberty interest)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting rules)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (official-capacity damages suits against state officials are barred by the Eleventh Amendment)
- Paine v. Baker, 595 F.2d 197 (4th Cir. 1979) (false information in a file that is relied on to deprive a liberty interest can implicate due process)