Castillo

Castillo v. Gomez

Good Law
27 F. App'x 820
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 15, 2001No. 01-15440; D.C. No. CV-97-02068-WBS (JFM)California315 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Steven M. Castillo, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that certain amendments to the California state regulation regarding prisoners’ family visits violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and, after de novo review, see Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir.1997), we affirm.

Since 1994, Castillo has been confined to Pelican Bay State Prison’s security housing unit (“SHU”) for an indeterminate term because he is a validated associate of the “Mexican Mafia (EME)” prison gang. See Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3341.5(c)(2)(A)(2). Throughout Castillo’s confinement to the SHU, inmates with an indeterminate SHU term have been prohibited from participating in the family visiting program. In 1995, the relevant state regulation was amended to exclude additional classes of inmates from participating in the program. See id. § 3174(e).

*822 Castillo lacks standing to challenge the 1995 amendments because a determination that they violate the Ex Post Facto Clause would not redress Castillo’s exclusion…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.