Dawson v. Johnson, 1:15-cv-01867-DAD-GSA-PC
| Decision Date | 27 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | 1:15-cv-01867-DAD-GSA-PC |
| Parties | ISAAC DA'BOUR DAWSON, Plaintiff, v. C/O JOHNSON, C/O GUZMAN, SERGEANT GONZALES, and C/O SHELTON, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE BE DENIED AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE GRANTED
Isaac Da'bour Dawson ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff's initial Complaint filed on December 14, 2015, against defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) Johnson, C/O Guzman, Sergeant Gonzales, and C/O Shelton ("Defendants"), on Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims for unreasonable unclothed body searches. (ECF No. 1.)
On January 29, 2018, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of June 29, 2018, and a dispositive motion filing deadline of August 30, 2018. (ECF No. 76.) All of the deadlines have expired.
On November 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 64.) On November 27, 2017, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 65.) On June 8, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered findings and recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be stricken, with leave to file a new motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 82.) The findings and recommendations are pending. (Id.)
On July 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a new motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 84.) On August 3, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's new motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 85.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion to strike.
On August 30, 2018, Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.1 (ECF No. 86.) On October 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the cross-motion. (ECF No. 92.) On October 19, 2018, Defendants filed a reply to the opposition. (ECF No. 94.)
On October 17, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered supplemental findings and recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff's first motion for summary judgment be deemed superseded by Plaintiff's second motion for summary judgment, rendering the first motion for summary judgment moot. (ECF No. 90.) The supplemental findings and recommendations are pending. (Id)
Defendants' motion to strike and the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment have been submitted upon the record without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(l) and are now before the court.
On August 3, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed on July 23, 2018, pursuant to Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's inherent powers. (ECF No. 85.)
///
///
Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) establishes that the Rules "govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts," with exceptions not applicable here, and "should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. "[A] district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties." Patrick v. Reynaga, No. 116CV00239LJOJDP, 2018 WL 5304805, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2018) (citing See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)).
"It is well established that '[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their docket.'" Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998) (alteration in original) (quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998)); accord Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010). This includes the power to strike items from the docket as a sanction for litigation conduct. Ibrahim v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 1048, 1065 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Ready Transp., Inc., 627 F.3d at 404 (9th Cir. 2010).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, filed on July 23, 2018, should be stricken from the record because it fails to cite material facts and evidentiary support for Plaintiff's argument and does not set forth any legal authority establishing the elements of Plaintiff's claims or evidence meeting that burden. In support of their motion, Defendants note that on June 6, 2018, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's prior motion for summary judgment filed on November 7, 2017, be stricken from the record because Plaintiff failed to assert sufficient facts supported by evidence to succeed on his claims, and failed to submit a statement of undisputed facts in compliance with Local Rule 260(a) and Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 86.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motion
///
///for summary judgment filed on July 23, 2018, should be stricken from the record for the same reasons.
Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants, see King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986), and the court has the power to strike items from the docket as a sanction for litigation conduct, Ibrahim, 835 F.3d at 1065. However, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly reaffirmed the principal that pro se litigants are entitled to leniency, particularly in civil rights cases, which grants Plaintiff latitude. See e.g., Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013) (); Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568, 574-75 (9th Cir. 2012) (), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 76, 187 L.Ed.2d 30 (2013); Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 938-40 (9th Cir. 2012) (); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, (9th Cir. 2009) ().
Defendants' arguments have merit. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is deficient. Plaintiff failed to file a statement of undisputed facts as required by Local Rule 260(a),2 and he offers no evidence except the allegations in his verified Complaint.3 However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of confinement, he is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigant. Therefore, to the extent possible, thecourt should endeavor to resolve Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment on their merits. Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399 () Accordingly, Defendants' motion to strike should be denied, and the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, including both of Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment, should now be considered on their merits.
Any party may move for summary judgment, and 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) (quotation marks omitted); Washington Mut. Inc. v. U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party's position, whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).
In resolving cross-motions for summary judgment, the court must consider each party's evidence. Johnson v. Poway Unified School Dist., 658 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1807. Plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial, and to prevail on summary judgment, he must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for him. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendants do not bear the burden of proof at trial and in moving for summary judgment, they need only prove an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff's case. In re Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010).
///
/// In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the court may not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted), and it must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes entry of judgment, Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The court determines only whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Because ...
To continue reading
Request your trial