Hasan v. Johnson
Filing
90
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Reopen Discovery Pursuant To Rule 56 (Doc. 69 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/16/2013. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JAWWAAD HASAN,
10
1:08-cv-00381-GSA-PC
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO REOPEN DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO
RULE 56
(Doc. 69.)
C/O JOHNSON,
13
Defendant.
/
14
15
I.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
16
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Jawwaad Hasan
17
(“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. All parties to this action have
18
voluntarily consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and
19
the case was assigned to the undersigned to conduct any and all further proceedings in the case,
20
including the trial and entry of a final judgment. (Docs. 7, 14, 26.) This action now proceeds on
21
Plaintiff’s original Complaint filed on March 17, 2008, against defendant Correctional Officer B.
22
Johnson (“Defendant”) for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 1.)
23
Discovery in this action was closed on December 1, 2011, and the deadline for filing pretrial
24
dispositive motions has expired. On May 15, 2012, Defendant filed a timely motion for summary
25
judgment, which is now pending. (Doc. 52.)
26
27
28
1
On October 20, 2010, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants and Plaintiff's claim based on supervisory
liability from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 19.) On February 13, 2012, the Court
dismissed Plaintiff's state law claims from this action via Defendant's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 43.)
1
1
On August 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion to reopen discovery pursuant to Rule
2
56. (Doc. 69.) On October 1, 2012, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 77 ¶V.)
3
II.
PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS
4
Allegations in the Complaint
5
The events at issue allegedly occurred at Corcoran State Prison ("CSP") in Corcoran,
6
California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there. Defendant Johnson was a correctional officer
7
employed at CSP at the time of the events at issue.
8
Plaintiff alleges as follows in the Complaint. On March 22, 2006, Plaintiff was escorted to
9
Administrative Segregation. Plaintiff was being placed in Administrative Segregation pending a
10
disciplinary charge against him for threatening staff. (Compl., ¶12.) Plaintiff, in handcuffs, was
11
escorted by Defendant Johnson and C/O Gonzalez. Id. Defendant Johnson, holding Plaintiff by the
12
handcuffs, “without just cause, justification, provocation or good cause or reason, violently jerked
13
the handcuffs, twisted them by the left side of the handcuffs, and thrusted plaintiffs’ handcuffs
14
upward thereby forcing plaintiff to walk on his toes.” (Compl., ¶13.) Upon reaching the rotunda
15
area, Defendant Johnson “grabbed plaintiff and violently propelled him across the rotunda slamming
16
plaintiff into another wall, and continued to slam plaintiff into walls thereon opposite sides of the
17
rotunda back and forth for several minutes. Plaintiff’s head was slammed into the walls several
18
times during this beating episode carried out by defendant Johnson.” (Compl., ¶14.) Plaintiff seeks
19
monetary damages as relief.
20
Eighth Amendment Excessive Force Claim
21
Plaintiff brings a claim against Defendant for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth
22
Amendment of the United States Constitution. “What is necessary to show sufficient harm for
23
purposes of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause [of the Eighth Amendment] depends upon
24
the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). “The objective component of
25
an Eighth Amendment claim is . . . contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of
26
decency.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The malicious and sadistic use of
27
force to cause harm always violates contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not
28
significant injury is evident. Id. at 9; see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002)
2
1
(Eighth Amendment excessive force standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis
2
injuries)). However, not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of
3
action.” Id. at 9. “The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments
4
necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that
5
the use of force is not of a sort ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Id. at 9-10 (internal
6
quotations marks and citations omitted).
7
“[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of
8
the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied
9
in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.”
10
Id. at 7. “In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it may also be proper
11
to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of
12
force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts made to
13
temper the severity of a forceful response.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
14
“The absence of serious injury is . . . relevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry, but does not end
15
it.” Id.
16
III.
RENEWED MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY - RULE 56
17
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)(2), if Plaintiff shows by affidavit or
18
declaration that for specified reasons he cannot present facts to oppose the motion for summary
19
judgment, the Court may defer ruling on the motion to allow time for further discovery. In order to
20
gain a continuance under Rule 56(d), Plaintiff must identify by affidavit the specific facts that further
21
discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment. Tatum v.
22
City and County of Sacramento, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006); Tuvalu v. Woodford, No. CIV
23
S-04-1724 RRB KJM P, 2007 WL 2900175, at 1-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2007). A court is within its
24
discretion to deny such a request when the party seeking the continuance has not diligently pursued
25
discovery previously. Qualls v. Blue Cross of California, 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir.1994).
26
A.
27
Plaintiff previously filed a motion to reopen discovery on May 31, 2012. (Doc. 57.) Because
28
Plaintiff failed to provide the declaration or affidavit required by Rule 56(d), the Court denied the
Parties’ Positions
3
1
motion without prejudice to renewal of the motion within thirty days, "submit[ting]an affidavit or
2
declaration identifying the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, explaining why those
3
facts would preclude summary judgment, discussing his diligence in pursuing discovery previously,
4
and describing his efforts to obtain permission from prison officials to communicate with his
5
witnesses." (Order, Doc. 62 at 4:19-22.) Plaintiff now renews the motion, requesting that the Court
6
reopen discovery to enable him to interview witnesses and acquire the declarations needed to file a
7
properly supported opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
8
9
Plaintiff asserts that he requires declarations from the following witnesses to properly oppose
summary judgment:
10
Correctional Officers J. Gonzales and D. Valtierra
11
Plaintiff alleges that C/O J. Gonzales and C/O D. Valtierra were with defendant B. Johnson
12
during the time Plaintiff was escorted from the program office to Ad Seg and were present during
13
the entire beating episode in the rotunda. Plaintiff seeks to interview these officers to discover facts
14
contradicting Defendant Johnson's version of the events in the motion for summary judgment, which
15
places C/O J. Gonzales and C/O D. Valtierra, and not Defendant, as Plaintiff's primary escorts.
16
Correctional Officer Harashia
17
Plaintiff alleges C/O Harashia was the officer who opened the door to the rotunda, allowing
18
defendant Johnson, J. Gonzales, D. Valierra, and Plaintiff to enter the rotunda, and that Harashia
19
could see through a clear glass window where Plaintiff was slammed into the walls for several
20
minutes. Plaintiff seeks to interview C/O Harashia to discover his version of the events and whether
21
he witnessed the beating.
22
Inmate Desi Burns
23
Plaintiff alleges that inmate Desi Burns observed defendant Johnson using excessive force
24
on Plaintiff, from his cell door, and Plaintiff has submitted a letter written by inmate Burns, dated
25
June 28, 2011, describing what Burns saw. Exh to Motion, Doc. 69 at 5-6. Plaintiff requests that
26
Burns' letter be given the same legal authority as a declaration, or that Plaintiff be allowed further
27
discovery to obtain Burns' declaration.
28
///
4
1
Inmate Hackworth
2
Plaintiff alleges that inmate Hackworth witnessed the entire incident at issue in the rotunda.
3
Plaintiff seeks to obtain Hackworth's declaration stating that he saw defendant Johnson use excessive
4
force against Plaintiff on March 22, 2006, from his cell door window. Plaintiff alleges that
5
Hackworth was housed in 3A04 cell 125, directly across the rotunda.
6
In opposition to Plaintiff’s renewed motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not shown
7
that his intended further discovery will preclude summary judgment, as required by Federal Rule of
8
Civil Procedure 56(d). Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s medical records would contradict any
9
testimony furthering Plaintiff’s allegations.
10
B.
11
Plaintiff has not shown how his intended further discovery will assist him in opposing
12
Defendant’s argument in the motion for summary judgment. In this case, there is no disagreement
13
between the parties that a dispute of fact exists with respect to whether Defendant used excessive
14
force during an escort, because Defendant has acknowledged that he “disputes all of Plaintiff’s
15
allegations concerning the escort.” (MSJ, Doc. 52 at 4 ¶I.A.) Here, Defendant seeks summary
16
judgment on the ground that Plaintiff's medical records, which show pre-existing injuries and only
17
superficial medical injuries, are incompatible with Plaintiff's allegations in the Complaint that he
18
received extensive physical injuries, paralysis, and "trauma beyond measure." Compl. ¶15.
19
Defendant argues that the contradiction between Plaintiff's medical records and Plaintiff's account
20
of his injuries is such that no reasonable jury could believe Plaintiff, entitling Defendant to summary
21
judgment.
Discussion
22
Plaintiff seeks further discovery to obtain evidence, through witness declarations, supporting
23
Plaintiff’s version of the events occurring on March 22, 2006.2 However, such evidence will not
24
assist Plaintiff in defeating Defendant’s argument with respect to his medical records. Thus, Plaintiff
25
2
26
27
28
W hereas Defendant claims that he did not escort any inmates on that day or come into physical contact
with Plaintiff, (Johnson Decl., Doc. 52-3 at ¶¶5, 6, 12, 13.), Plaintiff claims that Defendant escorted him and
“grabbed plaintiff and violently propelled him across the rotunda slamming plaintiff into another wall, and continued
to slam plaintiff into walls thereon opposite sides of the rotunda back and forth for several minutes[, slamming]
Plaintiff’s head [] into the walls several times during this beating episode carried out by defendant Johnson,”
(Compl., ¶14).
5
1
has not shown that his intended further discovery will preclude summary judgment. Therefore,
2
Plaintiff’s renewed motion to reopen discovery shall be denied.
3
IV.
4
5
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s renewed motion to
reopen discovery, filed on August 10, 2012, is DENIED.
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij
January 16, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?