Marshall v. Gates
| Decision Date | 27 January 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-55022,93-55022 |
| Citation | 44 F.3d 722 |
| Parties | 66 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1691, 30 Fed.R.Serv.3d 864 Bobby Rydell MARSHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daryl F. GATES, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Stephen Yagman, Yagman & Yagman, Venice, CA, for plaintiff-appellant.
Leslie E. Brown, Asst. City Atty., Los Angeles, CA, for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Central District of California.
Before: D.W. NELSON and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and KING *, District Judge.
The opinion filed November 8, 1994 is withdrawn.
Bobby Rydell Marshall (Marshall) brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, et seq., against Daryl Gates and other police officers of the City of Los Angeles (Gates). The district court, applying a local rule of the court, granted summary judgment for the defendants.
Marshall is an African-American Los Angeles Police Officer, who alleges he was subjected to two negative work actions as a result of his allegations of racism in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). According to his two affidavits (a sworn declaration and a sworn answer to interrogatories), on May 19, 1991 he provided information to Barbara Kelly and Brian Sunn, two lawyers working for the Christopher Commission, about racism within the LAPD. He told the lawyers that he had personally experienced racism within this organization and that he had previously been urged not to report misconduct by LAPD officers, not to testify to misconduct by LAPD officers, and to participate in a code of silence. Also in May 1991 he appeared on a PBS television program, "Beyond 2000," on which Daryl Gates also appeared; on this program Marshall "strongly criticized racism" in the LAPD.
Further, according to Marshall's affidavits, in June 1991 he was approached at roll call by Lieutenant Joseph Germain, the police officer to whom he reported. Germain admitted that racism existed within the LAPD but told Marshall it should be handled within the department and should not be aired publicly. Germain then ordered Marshall to go with him to the office of Robert Kimball, the captain in command. Kimball expressed to Marshall his anger about what Marshall had said on the television show and his anger that Marshall had spoken to representatives of the Christopher Commission. Kimball told Marshall that he had been called by Chief Gates and another police officer and asked why one of his officers was embarrassing the chief and the department by his talk of racism to the Christopher Commission. Marshall replied that he had read the Constitution of the United States and that it referred to freedom of speech. At that Kimball became angry and told Marshall, "We will deal with you later, get out of my office."
Following this incident Marshall was transferred from the morning shift, working from 7:00 a.m. to 3:45 p.m., to "the graveyard shift," working from 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. Still according to his affidavits, the change of shift was contrary to the LAPD's watch rotation and seniority policy. The second work action involved a promotion which Marshall did not receive; according to him, an improper transfer from a different division was used to fill the vacancy in retaliation for Marshall's complaints about racism.
According to the affidavit of Robert Kimball, Marshall was transferred from the morning shift to the graveyard shift "based solely on the deployment needs of the Southwest Division" and the transfer which filled the vacancy prevented a promotion from within the division. According to the affidavit of Joseph Germain, Marshall once mentioned to him that he had testified before the Christopher Commission, but Germain did not question him concerning his testimony and never took him before the captain for that reason; according to Germain, he was not involved in the supervision of Marshall in June 1991. According to the affidavit of Daryl Gates, he never spoke to either Kimball or Germain about the events referred to by Marshall and had no knowledge of Marshall's change of watch. According to the declaration of Patricia Ibarra, a police officer in the Southwest Division, she reassigned Marshall in accordance with existing policy and with no knowledge of his testimony before the Christopher Commission.
The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court noted that under Local Rule 7.6 a party opposing summary judgment must "serve upon all other parties and file with the Clerk ... the evidence upon which the opposing party will rely in opposition to the motion ..." fourteen days before the hearing on the motion. The hearing date set by the court was September 21, 1992. Under Local Rule 7.6 Marshall was required to file his opposition papers by September 8, 1992. But his affidavits, although mailed on September 16, 1992, were not filed until September 17 and 18, 1992, and had not been received by opposing counsel by the hearing date.
Under Local Rule 7.9 papers not timely filed by a party "will not be considered and may be deemed by the court consent to the granting or denial of the motion as the case may be." Applying this rule, the court declared that it would disregard Marshall's opposition papers. Based only upon the affidavits submitted by the defendants, the court ruled that there were no material facts in dispute and granted summary judgment for the defendants.
Marshall appeals.
Local rules are "laws of the United States." United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 575, 78 S.Ct. 501, 504, 2 L.Ed.2d 496 (1958). Local Rule 7.6 is a rule made by the Central District of California and so is valid if it is "not inconsistent" with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. F.R.C.P. 83.
The difficulty, however, is that the local rule appears to be inconsistent with the federal rule governing summary judgment to the extent that it bars a party from submitting affidavits in opposition to summary judgment prior to the day of the hearing. F.R.C.P. 56(c). The federal rule explicitly provides: "The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve opposing affidavits." Service by mail is completed upon mailing. F.R.C.P. 5(b). It appears to be inconsistent with Rule 56(c) to require a much...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winebarger v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency
...‘laws of the United States,’ " and are "valid if ... ‘not inconsistent’ with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.’ " Marshall v. Gates , 44 F.3d 722, 724 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Hvass , 355 U.S. 570, 575, 78 S.Ct. 501, 2 L.Ed.2d 496 (1958) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 83 ).In this ......
-
Cecala v. Newman
...is the evil to which LRCiv 56.1(d) is directed. Newman could have objected to the Cecala declaration on this ground. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 725 (9th Cir.1995) (Rule 56(c) "does not unconditionally require a district court to accept affidavits up to the date set for hearing on the m......
-
Green v. Baca
...was prejudiced by the one-day late filing, the court exercises its discretion to consider the declaration. See Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 725-26 (9th Cir.1995) (reversing the district court for failure to consider late-filed affidavits because the sanction of failing to consider them w......
-
U.S. v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc.
...rule even applies.25 We decline so hastily to dispose of a local rule. "Local rules are `laws of the United States,'" Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 575, 78 S.Ct. 501, 2 L.Ed.2d 496 (1958)), and "valid if . . . `not inconsistent'......
-
Organization and strategy
...timing have been interpreted as simply imposing a “condition” on the acceptance of the opposing papers and affidavits. Marshal v. Gates , 44 F.3d 722, 725 (9th Cir. 1995). Some local rules add procedural requirements to summary judgment practice for the efficiency of the court. Thus, the co......
-
Table of Cases
...624, 641-42 (9th Cir. 1978), §4:135 Marquis v. Tecumseh Prods. Co. , 206 F.R.D. 132, 191 (E.D. Mich. 2002), Form 7-51 Marshal v. Gates , 44 F.3d 722, 725 (9th Cir. 1995), §1:05.7 Martin Banks v. Mannoia , 890 F.Supp. 95 (N.D.N.Y. 1995), §7:103 Marx v. General Revenue Corp. , 133 S.Ct. 1166 ......