Stephen Yagman v. Cornell Companies, Inc.
693 F. App'x 495
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Yagman sued under Bivens, RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962), and state law challenging a failed drug test at a halfway house, subsequent disciplinary proceedings, loss of good-time credits, and resulting confinement; events occurred before his November 8, 2010 release from custody.
- Yagman filed the action on September 29, 2014 in federal district court after a district court issued a habeas writ in October 2012 that later was deemed issued in error by this court.
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); Yagman had previously amended once and sought leave to amend again which was denied as futile.
- The court held Yagman’s Bivens and state malicious-prosecution claims were time-barred by California’s two-year personal-injury statute of limitations, tolled during incarceration but running from his 2010 release.
- The panel found the habeas writ did not validly invalidate the disciplinary sentence for Heck accrual purposes because the writ was issued in error after the Bureau of Prisons had already vacated the underlying proceedings.
- The district court also dismissed RICO claims as conclusory for failure to meet pleading standards; the magistrate’s denial of sanctions and the district judge’s denial of reconsideration were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bivens and related federal claims are timely | Yagman: accrual delayed until district court issued habeas writ (Oct. 2012) | Claims accrued at release (Nov. 8, 2010); limitations expired Nov. 8, 2012 | Claims time-barred; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Heck tolls accrual until habeas invalidation | Yagman: Bureau’s revocation was not invalidated until habeas writ, so Heck delays accrual | The writ was issued in error and the Bureau vacated proceedings in 2010, so accrual was earlier | Heck does not save the claims; accrual was in 2010 |
| Sufficiency of RICO pleading | Yagman: complaint should be liberally construed; facts suffice | Allegations are conclusory and lack RICO factual particulars required | RICO claims dismissed for failure to state a claim; leave to amend denied as futile |
| Denial of sanctions and reconsideration | Yagman: magistrate improperly denied sanctions en masse; district judge erred on reconsideration | Denials within discretion; no showing of clear error or law conflict | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; reconsideration not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizing implied damages action against federal officers)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (damages claim for unconstitutional conviction accrues after invalidation)
- Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal civil-rights suits borrow state personal-injury statute of limitations)
- Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (California two-year statute applies to Bivens/§ 1983 claims)
- Eclectic Props. E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co., 751 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2014) (RICO pleading standards applied on Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Winterrowd v. American Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2009) (summary denial of sanctions is not per se an abuse of discretion)
- Yagman v. Thomas, [citation="612 F. App'x 408"] (9th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (district court’s habeas writ was issued in error/moot because Bureau vacated proceedings)