Orrin Carr v. MATTHEW L. CATE; JAMES A. YATES, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ORRIN CARR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MATTHEW L. CATE; JAMES A.
YATES, Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15924
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01931-LJO-
GBC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 18, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL, Senior District
Judge.**
Orrin Carr (Carr), appeals from the district court’s grant of Defendants’
motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
FILED
DEC 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court of Colorado, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

We reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, drawing
all reasonable inferences in Carr’s favor. See Zeinali v. Raytheon Co., 636 F.3d
544, 547 (9th Cir. 2011). Carr, a California state prisoner, left a Christmas card for
a prison staff member with the message “Sorry” written inside. As a result, Carr
was charged and found guilty of a violation of Title 15 of the California Code of
Regulations § 3013 (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3013). Section 3013 reads as
follows: “Unlawful Influence. Inmates shall not attempt to gain special
consideration or favor from other inmates, employees, institution visitors or any
other person by the use of bribery, threat or other unlawful means.” Cal. Code
Regs. Tit. 15, § 3013.
The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
holding that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Carr’s
claim. We disagree and conclude that Carr was not on notice that his conduct
violated Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3013, therefore, the prison violated Carr’s due
process rights. See Newell v. Sauser, 79 F.3d 115, 117 (9th Cir. 1996). The
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants is reversed
and remanded for further proceedings.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

Carr also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to compel
discovery to show the prison enforced an undefined regulation called “over
familiarity” under the pretext of other rules. However, we need not consider this
issue because we decide on other grounds, and thus the question of whether
summary judgment was properly granted on Carr’s discovery request is moot.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --