Willis v. Mullins

• Decision Date: 16 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. CIV–F–04–6542 AWI GSA.,CIV–F–04–6542 AWI GSA.
• Citation: 809 F.Supp.2d 1227
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: Gary WILLIS, Plaintiff, v. Joseph MULLINS, et al., Defendants.

809 F.Supp.2d 1227

Gary WILLIS, Plaintiff,

v.Joseph MULLINS, et al., Defendants.

No. CIV–F–04–6542 AWI GSA.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Aug. 16, 2011.

Marion Stout Yagman, Stephen Yagman, Yagman & Reichmann, Venice, CA, for Plaintiff.

Virginia Gennaro, Bakersfield City Attorney's Office, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.

ORDER RE: SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND RECONSIDERATION

ANTHONY W. ISHII, Chief Judge.

Defendants have made three motions for summary adjudication. Plaintiff has made a motion for reconsideration. All motions deal with related matters. The motion for reconsideration is denied and the motions for summary adjudication are granted in part and denied in part.

I. History

Gary Willis (“Plaintiff”) was a registered occupant of the E–Z 8 Motel in Bakersfield, CA on March 27, 1996. Police received reports of heavy traffic from that room and were informed it was registered under Plaintiff's name. The Defendants are four law enforcement officers form different departments who were sent to investigate: Bakersfield Police Officer Joseph Mullins, Bakersfield Police Officer Silvius, Kern County Deputy Sheriff Hood, and California State Parole Officer Diane Mora.¹ Defendant Mullins consulted a list of parolees generated by the California Department of Corrections and distributed to local police departments on a roughly monthly basis (“Parole Roster”). He presented the Parole Roster to Defendant Mora; she confirmed the Parole Roster indicated that Plaintiff was on parole and subject to search. After announcing their presence and entering the motel room, Defendants found two individuals inside, Plaintiff and Kathleen Moye. Also visible were a knife, a syringe, and a briefcase. Defendants announced the commencement of a parole search. Plaintiff informed Defendant Mullins he was no longer on parole and provided his parole discharge card. Defendant Mora left to seek telephone confirmation of Plaintiff's parole status. In fact, Plaintiff had been discharged from parole nine months prior. While the call was taking place, Defendant Mullins detained Plaintiff outside the motel room while Defendants Silvius and Hood talked with Ms. Moye inside the room. Ms. Moye admitted to recently using methamphetamine, stated that she put a speed pipe in the briefcase, and consented to search of the briefcase. Defendant Mullins brought Plaintiff back into the room. Defendants Mullins, Silvius, and Hood opened the briefcase and found methamphetamine, speed pipes, syringes, set of scales, small plastic bags, spoons, and pay-owe sheets. At some point, Defendant Mora returned and informed Defendant Mullins that Plaintiff was not on parole. Defendants arrested Plaintiff and Ms. Moye.

Plaintiff made a motion to suppress evidence, which the California trial court denied. Based on evidence found within the motel room, Plaintiff was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11378) and possession of narcotics paraphernalia (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11364). He ultimately served six years in state prison. On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal found the entry unconstitutional and the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule inapplicable, but nonetheless affirmed the denial of suppression based on the finding that the officers had sufficient probable cause to search the briefcase based on Ms. Moye's statements to Defendant Silvius. The Fifth District's rationale was that the “freeze” in search was a reasonable response to the uncertainty concerning Plaintiff's parole status. People v. Willis, 71 Cal.App.4th 530, 541, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 895 (Cal.Ct.App.1999). On appeal, the attorney general conceded that the Fifth District's rationale for denying the motion to suppress was erroneous. People v. Willis, 28 Cal.4th 22, 25, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 105, 46 P.3d 898 (Cal.2002). The California Supreme Court overturned Plaintiff's conviction on June 3, 2002, finding that evidence from the search must be suppressed as the good faith exception did not apply. People v. Willis, 28 Cal.4th 22, 38, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 105, 46 P.3d 898 (Cal.2002). Plaintiff was released on August 31, 2002.

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a civil suit based on a number of causes of action. At this point, the only cause of action that remains is 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all Defendants. When this suit was first brought, Plaintiff was unable to locate Defendant Hood; he was not brought into the case until a few years had passed. As a result, Defendant Hood was not involved when the original motions for summary judgment were made. Plaintiff first made a motion for summary adjudication, arguing that the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Willis, 28 Cal.4th 22, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 105, 46 P.3d 898 (Cal.2002) had preclusive effect on the Defendants. Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication was denied. Doc. 81, December 21, 2005 Order. The decision was certified for interlocutory appeal. Doc. 109, February 28, 2006 Order. Plaintiff's petition for appeal was denied by the Ninth Circuit. Doc. 124. Next, the Bakersfield Defendants and Defendant Mora made motions for summary judgment. The court granted in part and denied in part, finding:

1. Defendants' initial entry into the motel room violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Qualified immunity on this issue can not be determined at this time.

2. Defendant Mora's actions in confirming Plaintiff's parole status once he produced his parole discharge card did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

3. Bakersfield Defendants' search of the briefcase did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Doc. 172, September 25, 2007 Order, at 39:7–12. Defendant Mora appealed the denial of qualified immunity for the initial entry as a matter of right. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. Willis v. Mora, 314 Fed.Appx. 68 (9th Cir.2009).

The parties were given a chance to file additional dispositive motions in order to clarify the issues for trial. The Bakersfield Defendants, Defendant Mora, and Defendant Hood have made motions for summary adjudication. Plaintiff has made a motion for reconsideration. The four motions deal with overlapping issues. All motions are opposed. The matters were taken under submission without oral argument.

II. Legal Standards

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Fortyune v. American Multi–Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir.2004). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and of identifying the portions of the declarations (if any), pleadings, and discovery that demonstrate an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir.2007). A fact is “material” if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Savings Assn., 322 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.2003). A dispute is “genuine” as to a material fact if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir.2006).

Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the movant must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the movant. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir.2007). Where the nonmoving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the movant may prevail by presenting evidence that negates an essential element of the non-moving party's claim or by merely pointing out that there is an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the non-moving party's claim. See James River Ins. Co. v. Schenk, P.C., 523 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir.2008). If a moving party fails to carry its burden of production, then “the non-moving party has no obligation to produce anything, even if the non-moving party would have the ultimate burden of persuasion.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Companies, 210 F.3d 1099, 1102–03 (9th Cir.2000). If the moving party meets its initial burden, 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, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The opposing party cannot “ ‘rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [its] pleading’ but must instead produce evidence that ‘sets forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ ” Estate of Tucker v. Interscope Records, 515 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir.2008).

The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir.2003). 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 Juell v. Forest Pharms., Inc., 456 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1149 (E.D.Cal.2006); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Sinnott, 300 F.Supp.2d 993, 997 (E.D.Cal.2004). “A genuine issue of material fact does not spring into being simply because a litigant claims that one exists or...