Carlos Castro v. Cal Terhune
712 F.3d 1304
9th Cir.2013Background
- Castro challenged his 2011 validation as a prison gang associate under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3378(c)(4).
- California regulates gang validation with two degrees (member/associate) and a three-item requirement, plus a direct-link item.
- A Remedial Order directed a new validation process to determine whether Castro is a gang associate now, not retroactively.
- Barneburg conducted a 2011 validation interview and relied on five evidentiary items (drawings, birthday card, debriefings) to recommend validation.
- The Office of Correctional Safety ultimately validated Castro as a prison-gang associate in 2011; the district court terminated the action, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed without remand for further evidentiary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cal. 3378(c)(4) is unconstitutionally vague. | Castro contends the definition is vague. | Defendants argue the regulation is definite and applied properly. | Not vague; regulation sufficiently definite. |
| Whether the district court should have evaluated ‘some evidence’ for Castro’s validation. | Castro says the court failed to apply the ‘some evidence’ standard. | Defendants relied on the Remedial Order and regulations; no error. | District court erred in not sua sponte applying ‘some evidence,’ but record supports finding. |
| Whether the 2011 validation satisfied the Remedial Order’s “now” requirement. | Evidence used was too old to prove present relation. | Remedial Order allowed older evidence; required compliance with regulations. | 2011 validation satisfies the Remedial Order; not necessary to remand. |
| Whether the age of source items affects validity under the Remedial Order. | Older items may be unreliable for current status. | Age may affect weight but not validity; no weighing on appeal. | Age of items may affect weight but does not defeat ‘some evidence’ finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1983) (void-for-vagueness due process standard for writs of regulation)
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) (‘some evidence’ standard for disciplinary decisions in prison)
- Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 2003) (reinforces ‘some evidence’ standard in prison validation)
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (U.S. 2003) (principles governing due process in prison regulations)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (prison regulations reviewed for rational relation to penological interests)
- United States v. Johnson, 626 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2010) (vagueness in a supervised-release context distinguished)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859 (S. Ct. 2011) (due process in parole proceedings; ‘some evidence’ standard not required there but informative)