Henry Gonzalez v. James Cox
671 F. App'x 677
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Former Nevada prisoner Henry Frometa Gonzalez appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging retaliation, due process violations, and deliberate indifference/failure to protect.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and denied leave to amend.
- Gonzalez challenged claims tied to placement in segregation and transfer to a maximum-security prison, plus retaliation and failure-to-protect allegations.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim and considered the adequacy of a pro se complaint.
- The panel affirmed dismissal of retaliation and failure-to-protect claims for insufficient factual allegations, vacated dismissal of segregation-related due process claims (granting leave to amend), and remanded for consideration of the transfer-to-maximum-security due process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation claim | Gonzalez alleged retaliatory acts by prison staff after protected conduct | Defendants argued complaint lacked factual detail linking acts to retaliation | Dismissed for failure to plead sufficient factual allegations |
| Failure-to-protect / deliberate indifference | Gonzalez alleged officials ignored threats to his safety | Defendants argued no facts showing officials knew and disregarded excessive risk | Dismissed for failure to allege deliberate indifference |
| Due process — segregation placement | Gonzalez contended segregation placement violated procedural due process | Defendants argued pleading lacked facts showing lack of notice/hearing | Dismissed but vacated dismissal; court allowed amendment to plead notice/opportunity to be heard |
| Due process — transfer to maximum security | Gonzalez alleged transfer violated due process | Defendants sought dismissal on pleadings | Court did not decide merits; remanded for district court to address in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for §1915A dismissals)
- Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.) (dismissal standards under §1915)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir.) (pro se pleadings must still state plausible claims)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. Supreme Court) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge and disregard of excessive risk)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir.) (requirements for supervisory liability)
- Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir.) (elements of prisoner retaliation claims)
- Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir.) (leave to amend for pro se plaintiffs unless incurable)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (standard on dismissal and leave to amend for pro se complaints)
- United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870 (9th Cir.) (appellate review excludes facts/documents not presented to district court)