Moore v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 27 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. C 06-02105 SBA (PR).,C 06-02105 SBA (PR). |
| Citation | 653 F.Supp.2d 984 |
| Parties | Jumah Ali-Thomas MOORE, Plaintiff, v. M. THOMAS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Jumah Ali-Thomas Moore, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Trace O. Maiorino, California State Attorney General's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DISMISS; ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS; AND REFERRING CASE TO PRO SE PRISONER SETTLEMENT PROGRAM
Docket Nos. 57, 83, 86, 88, 91, 97.
Plaintiff Jumah Ali-Thomas Moore, a state prisoner who has recently been transferred from Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP) to the California Medical Facility, filed this civil action in the Monterey County Superior Court, Moore v. Thomas, et al., Case no. M76479, alleging various claims stemming from his incarceration at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP). On March 21, 2006, this action was removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
Defendants now move for summary judgment on the grounds that there are no material facts in dispute and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In the alternative, Defendants move to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and for failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act.
For the reasons outlined below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. The Court also addresses Plaintiff's pending motions.
On October, 24, 2005, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Monterey County Superior Court, alleging, in part: (1) excessive use of force by Defendant SVSP Correctional Officer L. Baez stemming from an incident on August 8, 2004; (2) failure by Defendants SVSP Correctional Officers L. Zamora, E. Pulido, M. Thomas, and C. Tsai to intervene when Defendant Baez used excessive force against Plaintiff; (3) inadequate medical treatment by Defendants SVSP Nurses M. Arroyo, C. Vogel-Pace and C. Matthews; (4) deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs by Defendants SVSP Physicians J. Pistone, R. Gibbs, and I. Grillo. (Compl. at 2-10.) Plaintiff also alleged state claims of negligence, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the intentional torts of assault and battery, arising from the same acts and events that gave rise to his federal claims. (Id.)
As mentioned above, Defendants Zamora and Pulido removed this case to federal court on March 21, 2006. Removal was proper because Plaintiff asserted federal claims on the face of his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
In an Order dated October 30, 2008, the Court found that Plaintiff alleged a cognizable excessive force claim against Defendants Baez, Tsai, and Zamora. (Sept. 30, 2008 Order at 4, 2008 WL 4447726.) However, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Defendants Pulido and Thomas for failure to allege facts showing the basis for the constitutional liability. (Id.) The Court also found that Plaintiff alleged a cognizable deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Arroyo, Vogel-Pace, Matthews, Pistone, Grillo, and Gibbs, and cognizable state claims of negligence, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the intentional torts of assault and battery. (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff's remaining claims were dismissed. (Id. at 6.)
On November 17, 2008, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint and alleged additional facts relating to his excessive force claim against Defendants Pulido and Thomas. (Amendment to the Compl. at 1-2.)
In a notice dated November 17, 2008, the Court informed Plaintiff and Defendants that service has been ineffective on Defendants Grillo, Matthews, Arroyo, and Vogel-Pace. (Nov. 17, 2008 Notice at 1.) The Court directed Plaintiff to provide the Court the current addresses of these Defendants by December 17, 2008, and informed Plaintiff that the failure to do so would result in the dismissal of his claims against them. (Id.)
In an Order dated December 9, 2008, the Court found that Plaintiff alleged a cognizable excessive force claim in his amendment to the complaint against Defendant Thomas, but dismissed his claim against Defendant Pulido with prejudice. (Dec. 9, 2008 Order at 3-4.)
In another Order dated December 18, 2008, the Court noted that service continued to be effective on Defendants Grillo, Matthews, Arroyo, and Vogel-Pace, and granted Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to locate these Defendants. (Dec. 18, 2008 Order at 2, 5.) The Court again directed Plaintiff to provide the Court the current addresses of these Defendants by January 20, 2009, and informed Plaintiff that the failure to do so would result in the dismissal of his claims against them. (Id. at 6-7.)
In another Order dated January 21, 2009, the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Vadas for a settlement proceeding that was to take place on or before March 23, 2009.
On January 29, 2009, Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss.
On February 24, 2009, Plaintiff, Defendants' counsel, and a representative of the Warden met for a settlement conference before Judge Vadas. (Feb. 25, 2009 Report of Settlement Proceeding at 1.) The parties agreed to attempt a global settlement conference on or before April 26, 2009. (Id. at 2.)
In an Order dated February 25, 2009, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to provide the addresses of Defendants Matthews, Arroyo, and Vogel-Pace by the January 20, 2009 deadline, and dismissed Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants. (Feb. 25, 2009 Order at 2-3, 2009 WL 498660.) In response to his request for the Court's assistance in obtaining the current address of Defendant Grillo, Plaintiff was granted another extension of time and was given until March 23, 2009 to provide the Court with Defendant Grillo's current address. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff had informed the Court that because Defendant Grillo is retired, a current address for this Defendant could be obtained from either the California Board of Physicians, the Public Employees' Retirement System, or the California State Personnel Board. (Id. at 4.) Because Plaintiff could not communicate directly with the aforementioned offices, the Clerk of the Court was directed to send a letter to each of the aforementioned offices and to inquire about whether these offices could furnish the Court with the current address for Defendant Grillo. (Id.) Finally, the Court stated that in the event that the aforementioned offices were unable to furnish the current address for Defendant Grillo, Plaintiff was directed to continue his attempts to locate Defendant Grillo. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff was again informed that failure to do so will result in the dismissal of his claims against Defendant Grillo. (Id. at 6.)
On March 12, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of his claims against Defendants Matthews, Arroyo, and Vogel-Pace. (Pl.'s Mar. 12, 2009 Mot. for Recons. at 1.)
Also on March 12, 2009, Plaintiff filed another motion for reconsideration of the Court's February 25, 2009 Order, specifically relating to the March 2, 2009 deadline for the filing of the opposition.1
On March 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed his opposition. On the same day, Plaintiff also filed a request for an extension of time to correct his opposition, and to photocopy the exhibits in support of his opposition. (Pl.'s Request for an Extension of Time at 1.)
On March 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of his claims against Defendants Matthews, Arroyo, and Vogel-Pace.2 (Pl.'s Mar. 16, 2009 Am. Mot. for Recons. at 1.)
On March 19, 2009, the California Board of Physicians furnished the Court with an address for Defendant Grillo, which was filed under seal.
On March 20, 2009, Plaintiff submitted another opposition, which is identical to the one filed on March 13, 2009 except that it includes exhibits in support of the opposition. On the same date, he also filed a motion for additional exhibits.3
On March 23, 2009, the Court issued a summons to Defendant Grillo using the address furnished by the California Board of Physicians. The summons was filed under seal. Thereafter, the Clerk was informed by the U.S. Marshal's Office that they were unable to serve Defendant Grillo with the summons because that address was incorrect.
On April 3, 2009, Defendants filed their reply.
On April 8, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to complete the global settlement conference.
On April 10, 2009, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Temporary, Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order Against the Illegal Release and Disclosure of the Petitioner's Confidential and Private Medical Health Records, and For the Return of the Health Records to the Petitioner," which relates to the fact that Defendants had included his medical records as an exhibit in support of their motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss.
In an Order dated April 22, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to complete the global settlement conference. The time in which the parties were to complete the global settlement conference was extended up to and including May 25, 2009.
On March 19, 2009, Plaintiff, Defendants' counsel, and a representative from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) met for a global settlement conference before Judge Vadas. (Mar. 19, 2009 Report of Settlement Proceeding at 1.) The parties were unable to reach an agreement. (Id. at 2.)
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits demonstrate that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Johnson
...bound to be raised, and is certain to succeed when raised.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 20 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir.1994); Moore v. Thomas, 653 F.Supp.2d 984, 1003 (N.D.Cal.2009). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(iii) (providing that the court may dismiss claims that seek monetary relief against d......
-
Greggs v. Andrews Univ.
...raised, and is certain to succeed when raised." Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 20 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir.1994). See, e.g., Moore v. Thomas, 653 F.Supp.2d 984, 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ("[s]ummary judgment may be properly entered in favor of unserved defendants where (1) the controlling issues would b......
-
Solorio v. Larranaga
...actions or inactions have caused Plaintiff to not have access to competent, adequate mental health care. See Moore v. Thomas, 653 F. Supp. 2d 984, 1000 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ("Deliberate indifference may be shown where access to medical staff is meaningless as the staff is not competent and does......
-
Linarez-Rodriguez v. Honea
...established . . . there must be a purposeful act or failure to act on the part of the defendant and resulting harm.” Moore v. Thomas, 653 F.Supp.2d 984, 1000 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060; Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)......