Torres v. Diaz

Decision Date29 January 2016
Docket NumberCase No.: 1:14-cv-00492-DAD-SAB (PC)
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
PartiesJUAN MATIAS TORRES, Plaintiff, v. RALPH M. DIAZ, et al., Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANT FERNANDEZ'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, DEFENDANTS' EXHAUSTION-RELATED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND MOTIONS TO AMEND

Plaintiff Juan Matias Torres is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I.PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's second amended complaint against Defendants Michael Harris, Rumulo Garza, and Y. Arnold for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against Defendant John Doe for unreasonable search, against Defendant D. Fernandez for retaliation, and against Defendants B. Garza and M. Pallares for a due process violation.

On May 5, 2015, Defendants Harris, R. Garza, Arnold, and Pallares filed a motion for summary judgment for lack of exhaustion of the administrative remedies.1 (ECF No. 47.)

On May 22, 2015, Defendant Fernandez filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 58.)

On June 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment for lack of exhaustion. (ECF No. 78.) Defendants filed a reply on July 29, 2015. (ECF No. 89.) Plaintiff filed a surreply on September 3, 2015. (ECF No. 98.)

On July 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant Fernandez's motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 90.) Defendant Fernandez filed a reply on September 8, 2015. (ECF No 99. ) Plaintiff filed a surreply on October 8, 2015. (ECF No. 103.)

On July 16, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff's request for review of the confidential inquiry conducted by SATF staff in regard to the December 28, 2011, incident and inmate appeal, Log No. SATF-2-12-00236, and directed Defendants to submit the confidential inquiry for in camera review. (ECF No. 86.) After Defendants' motion for reconsideration of the July 16, 2015, order was denied, Defendants submitted the confidential inquiry for in camera review on October 9, 2015. (ECF No. 100. )

On October 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting additional discovery in order to oppose Defendants' motion for summary judgment relating to exhaustion. (ECF No. 105.)

On October 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint and motion for protective order to stay ruling on Defendant Fernandez's motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF Nos. 106, 107.) Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motions on November 20, 2015. (ECF Nos. 110, 111.) Plaintiff filed a reply on December 11, 2015. (ECF No. 115.)

Plaintiff filed a subsequent motion for leave to file an amended complaint on November 23, 2015. (ECF No. 112.) Defendants filed an opposition on December 14, 2015. (ECF No. 116.) Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendants' opposition on January 15, 2016. (ECF No. 121.)

On January 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint, and a motion to add one additional page, along with a third amended complaint which was lodged by the Court. (ECF Nos. 117-119.) Defendants filed an opposition on January 20, 2016. (ECF No. 122.)

///

///

II.DISCUSSION
A. Defendant Fernandez's Motion Judgment on Pleadings
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Discovery

By way of motion filed on October 22, 2015, Plaintiff seeks confidential gang validation documents regarding himself and another inmate to prepare a surreply. (ECF No. 105.) Plaintiff seeks this evidence to provide that his gang validation was based on false or fabricated evidence, thereby allegedly preventing the application of claim preclusion to bar his claims against Defendant Fernandez. Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion on November 20, 2015, and Plaintiff filed a reply on December 11, 2015. (ECF Nos. 110, 115.)

In support of his argument Plaintiff cites Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir. 2004), and argues that "collateral estoppel does not apply when the decision to hold one to answer was made on the basis of fabricated evidence or as the result of other wrongful conduct by the state or local officials." (ECF No. 105, Mot. at 3:5-9.) Plaintiff contends that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), he is entitled to the following items to oppose Defendant Fernandez's motion for judgment on the pleadings: (1) confidential source items and photographs used to validate Plaintiff as a gang member; (2) gang validation documents regarding Plaintiff's cellmate, inmate Dominguez; (3) Dominguez's inmate appeal submitted against Defendants regarding the December 28, 2011, use of force incident involving the parties; (4) a video-recorded interview between Plaintiff and correctional sergeant Coffee regarding the December 28, 2011, incident. (Id. at 1-2.)

Defendant Fernandez submits that his motion was brought under Rule 12(c), which does not provide a mechanism for discovery, and Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to additional discovery. Further, and notwithstanding the fact Defendant Fernandez's motion is fully briefed and submitted for adjudication, Plaintiff fails to establish how such discovery would affect the res judicata analysis.

First, Defendant is correct that the plain language of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c), does not provide an exception to oppose a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Second, the ruling in Awabdy is not applicable here. In Awabdy, the Ninth Circuit held that when a plaintiff has alleged wrongdoing as part of the probable cause determination, that determination cannot be said to be fullyand fairly litigated, and thus the determination does not have preclusive effect. See Awabdy, 368 F.3d at 1068. This is so because under California law there is a long-standing principle that a decision to hold a criminal defendant to answer after a preliminary hearing constitutes prima facie evidence or probable cause. Id. at 1067. Once probable cause is determined, that determination is a final judgment on the merits because a criminal defendant can immediately appeal the determination. Rutledge v. Cnty. of Sonoma, No. C 07-4274 CW, 2009 WL 3075596, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2009) (citing Haupt v. Dillard, 17 F.3d 285, 288-289 (9th Cir. 1994)). In Awabdy, the Ninth Circuit held that collateral estoppel did not bar the plaintiff's federal suit because the basis of the state court's probable cause determination was induced by wrongdoing. Awabdy, 368 F.3d at 1068. Simply stated, the plaintiff had no full and fair opportunity to challenge the prima facie probable cause determination, and therefore, that determination was not entitled to preclusive effect. Id. Plaintiff's retaliation claim here does not fall within the holding of Awabdy. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for additional discovery to oppose Defendant Fernandez's motion for judgment on the pleadings must be denied.

2. Legal Standard-Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), judgment on the pleadings may be granted when, accepting as true all material allegations contained in the nonmoving party's pleadings, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Chavez v United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The applicable standard is essentially identical to the standard for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, although the Court must accept well-pleaded facts as true, it is not required to accept mere conclusory allegations or conclusions of law. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-679 (2009).

In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court may consider documents incorporated by reference in the pleadings and "may properly look beyond the complaint to matters of public record" that are judicially noticeable. Mack v. South Bay Beer Distrib., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986), abrogated on other grounds by Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 111 (1991); Durning v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court"need not ... accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit" attached to the complaint. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).

3. Plaintiff's Surreply

As previously stated, Plaintiff filed a surreply to Defendant Fernandez's reply on October 8, 2015. (ECF No. 103.)

Parties do not have the right to file surreplies and motions are deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired. Local Rule 230(l). The Court generally views motions for leave to file a surreply with disfavor. Hill v. England, No. CVF05869 REC TAG, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Fedrick v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 366 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1197 (N.D. Ga. 2005)). However, district courts have the discretion to either permit or preclude a surreply. See U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in refusing to permit "inequitable surreply"); JG v. Douglas County School Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n.14 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to file surreply where it did not consider new evidence in reply); Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (new evidence in reply may not be considered without giving the non-movant an opportunity to respond).

In this instance, the Court did not grant Plaintiff leave to file a surreply and does not desire any further briefing. Accordingly, the surreply will not be considered in these findings and recommendations and should be stricken from the record.

4. Allegations in Second Amended Complaint against Defendant Fernandez

In...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT