5 6 Peter Gerard Wahl v. SUTTON, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 1
2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 3
4
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 5
6
PETER GERARD WAHL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SUTTON, Warden,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-15754
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01576-LJO-BAM
MEMORANDUM*
7
Appeal from the United States District Court 8
for the Eastern District of California 9
Lawrence J. O'Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding 10
11
Submitted August 15, 2018**
12
13
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 14
Former California state prisoner Peter Gerard Wahl appeals pro se from the 15
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth 16
and Fourteenth Amendment claims relating to his detention past his release date. 17
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. 18
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-15754
Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1
§ 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) 2
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm in part, reverse in part, 3
and remand. 4
The district court properly dismissed Wahl’s due process claim because 5
Wahl failed to allege facts sufficient to show that an official practice or procedure 6
led to his unlawful detention. See Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1359 (9th 7
Cir. 1985) (en banc) (setting forth standard for evaluating a due process violation 8
in the context of an unlawful detention). 9
The district court dismissed Wahl’s deliberate indifference claim, finding no 10
indication that defendant was aware of Wahl’s reduced sentence. However, Wahl 11
alleged that defendant was informed of his reduced sentence through the grievance 12
process and then failed to intervene. Liberally construed, these allegations are 13
sufficient to warrant ordering defendant to file an answer. See id. at 1354-55 14
(explaining that detention beyond the termination of a sentence constitutes cruel 15
and unusual punishment where the defendant, after being put on notice, fails to 16
act); see also Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 116 (pro se pleadings must be liberally 17
construed). We reverse the judgment as to Wahl’s deliberate indifference claim 18

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-15754
1
only and remand for further proceedings. 2
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. 3

-- 3 of 3 --