Crayton v. Hedgpeth et al

Filing 207

ORDER DENYING 188 Plaintiff's Motion for Terminating Sanctions; ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File an Amended Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Within Forty-Five (45) Days; and ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Mail Plaintiff a Copy of the First Amended Complaint and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, as a One Time Courtesy, signed by District Judge William Haskell Alsup on 4/25/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
No. C 08-00621 WHA (PR)

TIMOTHY CRAYTON,
10

For the Eastern District of California

United States District Court

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTION FOR
TERMINATING SANCTIONS;
MOTION TO DISMISS MISJOINED
DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS; AND
FURTHER SCHEDULING

11
12

v.

13
14

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER A.
HEDGPETH, et al.,

15
Defendants.
/

16
17

INTRODUCTION
18
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by a California prisoner
19
proceeding pro se. Plaintiff claims that defendants violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff
20
has filed a motion for terminating sanctions. Defendants have filed their opposition, and
21
plaintiff has filed his reply. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss misjoined defendants
22
and claims. Plaintiff has filed an opposition, and defendants have filed their reply. Plaintiff has
23
also filed a supplemental opposition in response to defendants’ reply.
24
For the reasons set out below, plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is denied.
25
The court orders further briefing on defendants’ motion to dismiss misjoined defendants and
26
claims.
27
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
28
This action commenced over three years ago. In his First Amended Complaint, plaintiff

1

raised seventeen claims against over thirty prison officials employed by either Salinas Valley

2

State Prison or Kern Valley State Prison. His claims are based on allegations that he had filed a

3

civil suit against several defendants, and as a result, defendants – who were alleged to be part of

4

a group of correctional officers known as the “Green Wall” gang – retaliated against him in an

5

attempt to persuade him to dismiss the suit, as well as other pending suits. Plaintiff’s claims

6

span over a period of years, and accuse defendants of, inter alia, sexual assault; threats;

7

intimidation; physical injuries; confiscation of private property; deliberate withholding of

8

access to plaintiff’s wheelchair, bedding, blankets, and personal property; and failure to provide

9

him with reasonable accommodations.
On July 9, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for an emergency preliminary injunction, in

11
For the Eastern District of California

United States District Court

10

which he claimed that defendants and non-defendants at Kern Valley State Prison illegally

12

confiscated legal property related to another federal civil lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of

13

California, Crayton v. Rochester Medical Corporation, No. 07-CV-1318-oww, from plaintiff’s

14

cell. On July 30, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, as well as a motion for summary

15

judgment. On September 9, 2010, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for emergency

16

preliminary injunction, and referred this matter to the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program. On

17

January 7, 2011, the court was informed that the parties were unable to reach an agreement.

18

On February 14, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of several

19

claims and defendants in the court’s initial screening order. On March 11, 2011, defendants

20

filed a motion to dismiss for, inter alia, failure to exhaust and failure to state a claim. On March

21

24, 2011, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motions. On April 25, 2011, defendants filed a

22

reply. On May 20, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to

23

dismiss, motion for partial summary judgment, and motion to reconsider. The court ordered

24

further briefing.

25

On July 12, 2011, defendants filed the underlying motion to dismiss misjoined

26

defendants and claims. On July 15, 2011, plaintiff filed the underlying motion for terminating

27

sanctions, which has now been submitted.

28
2

1
2
3
4

ANALYSIS
A.

Motion for Terminating Sanctions
In plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions (dkt. 188), he argues that defendants

5

confiscated and destroyed his legal property, in order to hinder the prosecution of this lawsuit.

6

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that, on May 3, 2011, non-defendants Officer Koehler, Lieutenant

7

Augustus, and Sergeant Epperson were acting “in concert with or for” defendant Adams (dkt.

8

188 at 4). These non-defendants demanded that plaintiff waive his single cell housing status, to

9

which plaintiff refused (ibid.). Due to plaintiff’s refusal, Sergeant Epperson signed a placement
order for plaintiff to be housed in administrative segregation (ibid.). As a result, plaintiff’s

11
For the Eastern District of California

United States District Court

10

personal and legal property was confiscated (ibid.). Plaintiff alleges that defendants have

12

repeatedly engaged in this “pre-emptive retaliation scam of fabricating a plausible excuse to

13

confiscate and destroy my case file records, evidence, etc.,” and obtained dismissals of prior

14

lawsuits that plaintiff has filed (id. at 5). On June 23, 2011, plaintiff was discharged from

15

administrative segregation, and returned to his original single cell (id. at 8). However, not all of

16

plaintiff’s personal property, case file records, including pleadings from this underlying case,

17

have been returned (id. at 9).

18

Defendant Lopez argues that plaintiff’s motion does not implicate her, despite plaintiff’s

19

general accusation regarding “defendants.” The remaining defendants argue that plaintiff’s

20

motion mainly accuses non-defendants of improper acts. Further, defendants allege that

21

plaintiff is attempting to circumvent the PLRA by requesting injunctive relief in this motion for

22

purported activities similar to those raised in his First Amended Complaint. Finally, defendants

23

claim that plaintiff has not met his burden of proof to permit the granting of a sanction of

24

dismissal against them.

25

Federal trial courts are vested with a wide range of inherent powers that allow them to

26

govern their courtrooms and the litigation processes before them. Chambers v. Nasco, 501 U.S.

27

32, 43 (1991). An example of these inherent powers is the discretionary power of a federal trial

28
3

1

court to levy appropriate sanctions against a party who prejudices its opponent through the

2

spoliation of evidence that the spoliating party had reason to know was relevant to litigation.

3

Glover v. Bic Corporation, 6 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1993). A court must use its inherent powers

4

only with restraint and discretion. Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44.

party destroyed evidence with notice that the evidence may be relevant to pending litigation.

7

Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006). Dismissal is an available sanction

8

when “a party has engaged deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of

9

judicial proceedings” because “courts have inherent power to dismiss an action when a party

10

has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly

11
For the Eastern District of California

To levy sanctions due to spoliation of evidence, the court must find that the offending

6

United States District Court

5

administration of justice.” Ibid. (citing Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distributors,

12

69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995)). “For dismissal to be proper, the conduct to be sanctioned

13

must be due to “willfulness, fault, or bad faith.” Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 69 F.3d at 348.

14

Plaintiff’s motion is denied for several reasons. First, although plaintiff alleges that

15

defendants Adams, Phillips, and Morales had roles in the confiscation and presumed destruction

16

of his legal and personal property, plaintiff’s conclusory statements are unsupported by any

17

evidence. As a result, the individuals whom plaintiff accuses of placing him in administrative

18

segregation and confiscating his property, are not defendants in this action. As such, even

19

assuming that the non-defendants acted wilfully or in bad faith, the court has no jurisdiction to

20

sanction them. Plaintiff’s claim that the named individuals in his motion are the “John Doe”

21

defendants previously alleged in his First Amended Complaint is insufficient to establish their

22

liability in this lawsuit. Cf. Brass v. County of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 1192, 1195-98 (9th Cir.

23

2003) (affirming the district court’s refusal to allow a plaintiff to substitute names for “John

24

Doe” defendants when plaintiff failed to request leave to add new parties or file an amended

25

complaint).

26
27

Second, to the extent defendants had a role in the confiscation of plaintiff’s property,
plaintiff provides no evidence that defendants did so willfully or in bad faith. In particular,

28
4

1

plaintiff provides no evidence to contradict defendant Adams’ declaration that Adams had no

2

involvement with plaintiff’s placement into administrative segregation or confiscation of

3

property (Decl. Adams at ¶ 3), nor defendant Morales’ statement that he did not order any

4

prison guard to pre-screen plaintiff’s legal property (Decl. Morales at ¶ 2). Absent any

5

evidence showing that the loss of plaintiff’s property was the result of something other than an

6

accident or innocent mistake, dismissal as a sanction is unwarranted. Cf. Med. Lab. Mgmt.

7

Consultants v. Am. Broad. Cos., 306 F.3d 806, 824 (9th Cir. 2002) (“When relevant evidence is

8

lost accidentally or for an innocent reason, an adverse evidentiary inference from the loss may

9

be rejected.”).
Third, plaintiff’s claims regarding the destruction of his legal property are not shining

11
For the Eastern District of California

United States District Court

10

examples of clarity. At this stage in the litigation, this court cannot find plaintiff’s assertions

12

any more or less credible than defendants’ denial of responsibility for the missing items.

13

Moreover, most of the allegations hinge on witness credibility, and, at this time, plaintiff’s

14

accusations are not sufficient to support a finding of bad faith or willfulness by the non-

15

defendants, much less the defendants.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is denied.1

16
17

B.

Motion to Dismiss for Misjoinder of Defendants and Claims

18

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s claims and named defendants are misjoined, in

19

violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that

20

because he is without any of his legal property regarding the underlying case, defendants’

21

motion should be denied.
Under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may join any persons

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On February 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a “verified emergency report,” in which he
declared that non-defendant Sergeant Epperson confiscated more legal property (dkt. 203 at
2-3). Plaintiff requests a protective order against Sergeant Epperson, as well as an extension
of time in which to file his reply to the opposition to motion terminating sanctions and
supplemental opposition to motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s request for a protective order
against non-defendant Sergeant Epperson is denied. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of
time in which to file his reply and supplemental opposition is granted. Plaintiff’s reply, filed
on April 5, 2012, is deemed timely filed. Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition, filed on April
6, 2012, is deemed timely filed.
1

5

the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) there is at

3

least one question of law or fact common to all the defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a); Coughlin

4

v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997). Once a defendant is properly joined under Rule

5

20, the plaintiff may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as he has against

6

that defendant, irrespective of whether those additional claims also satisfy Rule 20. See Fed. R.

7

Civ. P. 18(a); Intercon Research Assoc., Ltd. v. Dresser Indus. Inc., 696 F.2d 53, 57 (7th Cir.

8

1982) (“[J]oinder of claims under Rule 18 becomes relevant only after the requirements of Rule

9

20 relating to joinder of parties has been met with respect to the party against whom the claim is

10

sought to be asserted; the threshold question, then, is whether joinder of [a defendant] as a party

11
For the Eastern District of California

as defendants if: (1) any right to relief asserted against the defendants relates to or arises out of

2

United States District Court

1

was proper under Rule 20(a).”).

12

The “same transaction” requirement in Rule 20 refers to “similarity in the factual

13

background of a claim; claims that arise out of a systematic pattern of events” and have a “very

14

definite logical relationship” arise out of the same transaction and occurrence. Bautista v. Los

15

Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 842-843 (9th Cir. 2000) (Reinhardt, J., concurring) (quoting

16

Coughlin, 130 F.3d at 1350 and Union Paving Co. v. Downer Corp., 276 F.2d 468, 470 (9th

17

Cir. 1960)). In addition, “the mere fact that all [of a plaintiff’s] claims arise under the same

18

general law does not necessarily establish a common question of law or fact.” Coughlin, 130

19

F.3d at 1351. Claims “involv[ing] different legal issues, standards, and procedures” do not

20

involve common factual or legal questions. Id.

21
22

The remaining claims in this lawsuit are:
C

23
24

Claim 7: plaintiff claims that defendants Hedgpeth, Harrington, and Captain Woods
were deliberately indifference to plaintiff’s need for a grab bar

C

25

Claim 8: plaintiff claims that defendants Hedgpeth and Harrington were deliberately
indifference to plaintiff’s need for a grab bar

26

C

Claim 10: plaintiff’s RICO and retaliation claim against Hass

27

C

Claim 11: plaintiff’s RICO and retaliation claim against Macaleavey

28
6

1

C

Claim 12: plaintiff’s RICO and retaliation claim against Lopez and Matheny

2

C

Claim 13: plaintiff’s RICO and retaliation claim against Smith

3

C

Claim 16: plaintiff’s RICO and retaliation claim against Adams, Hedgpeth, Harrington,

4

Butterfield, Ward, Rufino, Jeffreys, Molina, Whitehead, Hass, Campagna, Fernando,

5

Phillips, Cruse, Neighbors, Jones, Sellers, and Amavisca; and

6

C

Claim 17: plaintiff’s RICO and retaliation claim against Adams, Amavisca, and

7

Hightower.

8

Because plaintiff maintains that he cannot file a meaningful opposition without a copy

direct the Clerk of the Court to mail plaintiff a full copy of his First Amended Complaint, as

11
For the Eastern District of California

of his complaint or the defendants’ motion, as a one time courtesy, the court will sua sponte

10

United States District Court

9

well as a copy of defendants’ motion to dismiss so that plaintiff may have a fair opportunity to

12

oppose defendants’ motion. The court also grants plaintiff an extension of time to file an

13

amended opposition. Plaintiff is advised that his opposition should be directly related to

14

defendants’ motion to dismiss for misjoinder and argue why the parties and claims do or do not

15

satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). Plaintiff’s opposition should not attempt to bring

16

in new claims or arguments related to his underlying claims raised in his First Amended

17

Complaint. Defendants shall file an amended reply within 15 days after the filing of plaintiff’s

18

amended opposition.

19

CONCLUSION

20

1. Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

21

2. Plaintiff shall file an amended opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss no later

22

than 45 days from the filing date of this order. Defendants shall file an amended reply 15 days

23

thereafter. Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be deemed submitted upon that date.

24

3. The Clerk of the Court shall mail, as a one time courtesy, to plaintiff a copy of the

25

First Amended Complaint and attachments (dkt no. 43), as well as a copy of defendants’ motion

26

to dismiss (dkt no. 184).

27

4. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

28
7

1

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion.

2

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: April

25

, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Eastern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\E.D. CAL\CRAYTON621\CRAYTON621mtdsancandjoinder.wpd

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8