From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bledsoe v. San Joaquin Cnty. Jail

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 18, 2021
2:18-cv-2710 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2021)

Opinion

2:18-cv-2710 JAM KJN P

11-18-2021

DONNELL BLEDSOE, Plaintiff, v. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a former county jail inmate, proceeding without counsel. Cross-motions for summary judgment and defendant Martinez's motions to strike and for terminating sanctions are before the court. As set forth more fully below, the undersigned finds that plaintiff's first motion for summary judgment should be denied; defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's second motion for summary judgment is granted; defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied without prejudice; and defendant's motion for terminating sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff included no charging allegations as to the county jail; thus, plaintiff's second amended complaint proceeds solely as to defendant Sgt. Martinez. (ECF No. 12 at 1.)

II. Plaintiff's Claims

This action proceeds on plaintiff's retaliation claim against defendant Martinez based on defendant allegedly planting evidence on plaintiff causing him to serve extra days in jail, which plaintiff alleges was done in retaliation for excessive grievances and implicating defendant in a grievance plaintiff filed against Lt. Leatuge. (ECF No. 11.)

II. Motion for Summary Judgment - General Legal Standards

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that the standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil procedure 56 is met. “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “[T]the moving party always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting then-numbered Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). “Where the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only prove that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case.” Nursing Home Pension Fund, Local 144 v. Oracle Corp. (In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig.), 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 advisory committee's notes to 2010 amendments (recognizing that “a party who does not have the trial burden of production may rely on a showing that a party who does have the trial burden cannot produce admissible evidence to carry its burden as to the fact”). Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. at 323.

Consequently, if the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to establish the existence of such a factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material in support of its contention that such a dispute exists. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987), and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, see Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled in part on other grounds, Hollinger v. Titan Capital Corp., 914 F.2d 1564, 1575 (9th Cir. 1990).

In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 630. Thus, the “purpose of summary judgment is to ‘pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.'” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) advisory committee's note on 1963 amendments).

In resolving a summary judgment motion, the court examines the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed. See Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 255. All reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F.Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 1987). Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. . . . Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.'” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 (citation omitted).

III. Rand Notice

On September 12, 2019, the court informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 15 at 3), citing Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). However, in such order, defendant was also cautioned that

defendant must contemporaneously serve with the motion [for summary judgment], but in a separate document, a copy of the attached Rand Notice. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998). Failure to do so may constitute grounds for denial of the motion.
(ECF No. 15 at 4.)

The undersigned reviewed defendant's motion, and no separate Rand notice was provided to plaintiff. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requires that defendants provide prisoners with the notice required by Rand at the same time the defendant files a motion for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 935 (“Rand . . . notice[] must be served concurrently with . . . motions for summary judgment.”) Thus, defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied without prejudice to renewal upon a showing that contemporaneous Rand notice was provided.

IV. Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment First Motion

On July 2, 2021, plaintiff filed his first motion for summary judgment.

“Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials and to be free from retaliation for doing so.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009)). A viable retaliation claim in the prison context has five elements: “(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005).

Here, as argued by defendant, plaintiff provided no evidence in support of his motion. He did not even provide his own declaration. Absent such evidence, this court cannot find that there are no material disputes of fact in connection with plaintiff's First Amendment claims. In addition, plaintiff included irrelevant arguments concerning his demand for damages, and prior sanctions orders, including a request that the balance due on such sanctions orders be applied to any judgment plaintiff is awarded.

Plaintiff also seeks attorney's fees, despite the fact that he is proceeding without counsel. (ECF No. 120 at 6.)

Finally, plaintiff complains that defendants have failed to comply with their obligations to make initial discovery disclosures. However, initial disclosures are exempt in “an action brought without an attorney by a person in the custody of the United States, a state, or a state subdivision.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv). A proceeding that is exempt from initial disclosures is also exempt from a Rule 26(f) conference. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f)(1). At the time plaintiff brought this action, he was a state prisoner. Therefore, initial disclosures were not required.

Then, on July 30, 2021, after defendant filed an opposition, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts.” (ECF No. 124.) Such filing is untimely because Local Rule 260(a) requires that statements of undisputed facts must accompany the motion. L.R. 260(a). To the extent such filing could be construed as plaintiff's reply, it appears that plaintiff attempted to demonstrate that his evidence is undisputed, but despite his citation to various exhibits, plaintiff provided no exhibits for the court to review. Rather, plaintiff refers to documents he apparently provided to defendant in discovery. Plaintiff is required to provide the court with exhibits he wishes the court to consider in addressing his motion. Plaintiff then again raises his objection that defendant failed to provide initial disclosures, which is again overruled.

Plaintiff also claims that he would mail counsel another $200.00 toward sanctions on August 3, 2021. (ECF No. 124 at 7.)

Plaintiff's motion is procedurally deficient and wholly lacks evidentiary support. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion should be denied.

Second Motion

On August 3, 2021, plaintiff filed a second motion for summary judgment. On August 31, 2021, defendant filed a motion to strike plaintiff's second motion.

As argued by defendant, plaintiff's second motion is duplicative of his first motion and is again procedurally defective. Only the last one and a half pages are different from the first motion, and do not contain any new arguments. Plaintiff's second motion again contains no evidence.

Plaintiff provides a copy of a $200.00 payment to defense counsel toward sanctions. (ECF o. 125 at 10.)

Accordingly, defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's second motion for summary judgment is granted.

V. Defendant's Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Defendant again moves to terminate this action based on plaintiff's failure to pay the court-ordered sanctions of $1500.00 in full. (ECF Nos. 88, 117.) The standards governing terminating sanctions were provided in the court's February 9, 2021 order. (ECF No. 88 at 3-4.) The record reflects that plaintiff has paid $600.00 toward sanctions, and more recent filings indicate plaintiff may have made at least one additional payment toward the sanctions order. Therefore, the undersigned declines to recommend terminating sanctions at this time.

VI. Subsequent Briefing/Objections

Because defendant must refile the motion for summary judgment and provide contemporaneous Rand notice, objections to briefing and defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's subsequent statement are now moot. However, plaintiff is cautioned that Local Rule 230(1) provides for a motion, an opposition, and a reply. Therefore, once defendant renews the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff may file one opposition. If plaintiff intends to file a statement of undisputed facts in support of his opposition, he must file it with his opposition, at the same time.

VII. Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs successive motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 129) is granted;
2. The Clerk of the Court shall strike plaintiffs successive motion (ECF No. 125);
3. Defendant's motion for terminating sanctions (ECF No. 130) is denied without prejudice.
4. Defendant's motion to strike (ECF No. 140) is denied as moot.

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 120) be denied;

2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 128) be denied without prejudice to renewal upon providing contemporaneous Rand notice to plaintiff. Such renewed motion shall be filed within thirty days from any district court order adopting the instant findings and recommendations.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).


Summaries of

Bledsoe v. San Joaquin Cnty. Jail

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 18, 2021
2:18-cv-2710 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2021)
Case details for

Bledsoe v. San Joaquin Cnty. Jail

Case Details

Full title:DONNELL BLEDSOE, Plaintiff, v. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 18, 2021

Citations

2:18-cv-2710 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2021)