(PC) Brown v. Gutierrez
1:20-cv-00245
E.D. Cal.Jun 25, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Rodney Brown, a pro se state prisoner convicted of second-degree murder (1986; 15-to-life), was paroled in 2012 and later returned to custody after a 2015 incident in which he brandished a shotgun during a domestic dispute; he pleaded to being an ex‑felon in possession and served two years.
- Brown received multiple Board of Parole Hearings (reconsideration denials in 2017, 2018, 2019) where the panel cited weapon possession, alleged criminal thinking, and the gravity of the commitment offense as grounds for denying parole.
- Brown alleges off‑the‑record comments by commissioners and that BPH members (Gutierrez and Garcia) were biased and retaliated against him for filing complaints/grievances, denying him impartial parole hearings.
- He asserts § 1983 claims: Fourteenth Amendment due process (biased hearings), First Amendment retaliation (for filing complaints), and an Eighth Amendment retaliation claim.
- The magistrate judge screened the complaint, concluded Brown failed to state a claim, and recommended dismissal without leave to further amend because Brown had already been given guidance and chose not to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process / impartial parole hearing | BPH members were biased, made off‑record threats, and denied impartial hearings | Brown received opportunity to be heard and written statements of reasons; alleged off‑record remarks insufficient and some speakers not named defendants | No due process violation; procedures required by Swarthout were provided; claim fails |
| First Amendment retaliation | Denial of parole was retaliatory because Brown filed complaints/grievances against BPH | No factual link alleged between Brown’s protected conduct and the parole denials; conclusory assertions only | Failed to plead causation/retaliatory motive; retaliation claim dismissed |
| Eighth Amendment retaliation | (Brown pleaded an Eighth Amendment retaliation claim) | Ninth Circuit treats such retaliation as First Amendment; no separate Eighth Amendment retaliation claim | No separate Eighth Amendment retaliation claim; dismissed |
| § 1983 pleading / personal participation & causation | Gutierrez and Garcia personally participated in biased decision to deny parole | § 1983 requires plausible factual allegations linking each defendant to the alleged constitutional deprivation; conclusory allegations insufficient | Complaint fails to show personal participation/causal link; dismissal recommended |
| Leave to amend | Brown objected to screening and sought relief | Magistrate previously gave opportunity to amend and explained deficiencies | Court recommends denying further leave to amend (but will vacate R&R if an amended complaint is filed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state plausible claim; conclusory assertions insufficient)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (U.S. 2011) (parole due‑process requires only opportunity to be heard and statement of reasons)
- O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1990) (parole boards must render impartial decisions)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a prisoner First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2007) (causation/personal participation standards under § 1983)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se complaints are to be construed liberally)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (§ 1983 requires an actual connection between defendant’s actions and alleged deprivation)