Garaux v. Pulley, s. 83-2076

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
• Citation: 739 F.2d 437
• Docket Number: 83-2236,Nos. 83-2076,s. 83-2076
• Parties: Randolph GARAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Reginald L. PULLEY, individually and in his official capacity as warden of the San Quentin State Prison; and J.W.L. Park, individually and in his official capacity as appeals investigator for the Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. Randolph GARAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Reginald PULLEY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Decision Date: 01 August 1984

Page 437

739 F.2d 437 39 Fed.R.Serv.2d 976 Randolph GARAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Reginald L. PULLEY, individually and in his official
capacity as warden of the San Quentin State Prison; and
J.W.L. Park, individually and in his official capacity as
appeals investigator for the Department of Corrections,
Defendants-Appellees.
Randolph GARAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Reginald PULLEY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 83-2076, 83-2236. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 18, 1984.
Decided Aug. 1, 1984.

Randolph E. Garaux, in pro. per.

Paul D. Gifford, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before CHOY, PREGERSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:

The issue presented on this appeal is whether the district court was required to provide explicit notice to Garaux, a pro se plaintiff, of its intent to transform defendants' motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) into a motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. We hold that it was.

Garaux was originally an inmate of the California Men's Colony (CMC) in San Luis Obispo, California. While at CMC he was placed in administrative segregation. A few days later, a hearing was held at CMC to review that placement. Garaux was found guilty of threatening a prison staff member. The disciplinary hearing officer recommended that he remain in administrative segregation.

Approximately one month later, Garaux was transferred from the Administrative Segregation Facility at CMC to San Quentin. Shortly after his transfer Garaux appeared before the San Quentin Institution Classification Committee. The Committee determined that because of the violation that Garaux committed at CMC, he should be housed in San Quentin's Management Control Unit.

Garaux filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1976) for his allegedly improper commitment to the San Quentin Management Control Unit. Garaux claims that in reviewing his commitment to that unit the prison officials failed to afford him

Page 438

a hearing that met constitutional standards of due process. The district court granted Garaux leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a). In that order the district court directed that "the defendants shall file with their answer a copy of all documents pertinent to the disciplinary and classification proceedings referred to in the complaint." Defendants Pulley, Nyberg, Pliler and Park, all officials of San Quentin prison, then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and attached the documents requested by the court. The defendants argued that plaintiff's complaint seeks to impose vicarious liability and that they enjoy immunity under the eleventh amendment. Garaux filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion.

At a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the district court, sua sponte, treated the motion as one for summary judgment and then, relying on the documents pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings, granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. ¹ Garaux was not present at that hearing and claims that he was never notified that the motion to dismiss was being construed as a motion for summary judgment.

Garaux contends that the district court erred in sua sponte treating the defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 because the district court failed to notify him of its intention to do so.

Rule 12(b)(6) provides that when a defendant raises the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and "matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one...