Scott v. Palmer et al

Filing 116

ORDER Granting 109 Motion for Reconsideration and Requiring Defendants to File an Opposition or a Statement of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration Within Fifteen Days, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/21/13. Fifteen-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
FLOYD SCOTT,

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01329-LJO-SKO PC

7
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND REQUIRING
DEFENDANTS TO FILE AN OPPOSITION
OR A STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION WITHIN FIFTEEN
DAYS

8
v.
9
J. PALMER, et al.,
10
Defendants.
11

(Doc. 109)
12

/

13
14

I.

Procedural History

15

Plaintiff Floyd Scott, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant

16

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 29, 2009. This action is currently proceeding against Defendants

17

Palmer, Rivera, and Lopez on Plaintiff’s claim that while he was at Kern Valley State Prison in

18

Delano, California, Defendant Palmer used excessive physical force against him and Defendants

19

Rivera and Lopez failed to intervene, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the

20

United States Constitution. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for reconsideration,

21

filed on January 11, 2013. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 8, 2013,

22

Defendants filed a reply on February 15, 2013, and the motion has been submitted upon the record.

23

Local Rule 230(l).

24

On March 19, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for

25

summary judgment. In relevant part, the Court found that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim arising

26

out of the use of pepper spray was barred by the favorable termination rule because Plaintiff lost

27

time credits as a result of being found guilty of battery on a peace officer. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544

28

U.S. 74, 81-2, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (2005).
1

1

On April 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration supported by evidence that

2

on March 6, 2012, the credit forfeiture had been set aside, removing the bar to his claim. On May

3

23, 2012, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for a sixty-day extension of time to oppose the

4

motion for reconsideration, but Defendants did not file an opposition. Instead, on June 22, 2012,

5

they filed a motion seeking an order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and requiring him to

6

furnish security, and seeking a prefiling order against Plaintiff.

7

On November 19, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for reconsideration,

8

found that Plaintiff’s claim was no longer barred by the favorable termination rule, and set aside its

9

order dismissing Plaintiff’s excessive force claim arising out of the use of pepper spray. On

10

December 21, 2012, the Court denied Defendants’ vexatious litigant motion.

11

Defendants now seek reconsideration of the order granting Plaintiff’s motion for

12

reconsideration on the ground that it was issued prematurely. Defendants argue that the action was

13

stayed in its entirety during the pendency of their vexatious litigant motion. Defendants seek to have

14

the order set aside or reissued now that the stay has been lifted.

15

Plaintiff opposes the motion on the ground that Defendants were granted sixty days within

16

which to file their opposition but they failed to do so, and the Court already ruled on his motion for

17

reconsideration. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants’ motion is frivolous and harassing, and the

18

Court’s ruling caused no prejudice to Defendants.

19

In reply, Defendants deny Plaintiff’s accusations and contend that he failed to address the

20

merits of their motion with respect to the existence of a stay pending resolution of their vexatious

21

litigant motion.

22

II.

Discussion

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) allows the Court to correct an order based on

24

clerical mistakes, oversights, and omissions, and 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from

25

an order for any reason that justifies relief. If the moving party is able to show an error in the

26

application of the law, Rule 60(b) permits the Court to correct the error. E.g., In re Syncor ERISA

27

Litigation, 516 F.3d 1095, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2008); In re Int’l Fibercom, Inc., 503 F.3d 933, 940-

28

///
2

1

41 (9th Cir. 2007); Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir.

2

1999); Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. E.E.O.C., 691 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1982).

3

In this case, the issue is whether the action was stayed during the pendency of Defendants’

4

vexatious litigant motion. The relevant Local Rule and California Code of Civil Procedure Sections

5

provide as follows:

6
7
8

On its own motion or on motion of a party, the Court may at any time order a party
to give a security, bond, or undertaking in such amount as the Court may determine
to be appropriate. The provisions of Title 3A, part 2, of the California Code of Civil
Procedure, relating to vexatious litigants, are hereby adopted as a procedural Rule
of this Court on the basis of which the Court may order the giving of a security,
bond, or undertaking, although the power of the Court shall not be limited thereby.

9
Local Rule 151(b).
10
11
12
13

In any litigation pending in any court of this state, at any time until final judgment
is entered, a defendant may move the court, upon notice and hearing, for an order
requiring the plaintiff to furnish security or for an order dismissing the litigation
pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 391.3. The motion for an order requiring the
plaintiff to furnish security shall be based upon the ground, and supported by a
showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a reasonable
probability that he or she will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant.

14
Cal. Civ. Proc. § 391.1 (West 2013).
15
16
17
18

When a motion pursuant to Section 391.1 is filed prior to trial the litigation is stayed,
and the moving defendant need not plead, until 10 days after the motion shall have
been denied, or if granted, until 10 days after the required security is furnished and
the moving defendant given written notice thereof. When motion pursuant to Section
391.1 is made at any time thereafter, the litigation shall be stayed for such period
after the denial of the motion or the furnishing of the required security as the court
shall determine.

19
Cal. Civ. Proc. § 391.6 (West 2013) (emphasis added).
20
Pursuant to Local Rule 151(b), the procedures set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure
21
Sections 391.1 and 391.6 applied to Defendants’ vexatious litigant motion. Under Section 391.6,
22
the action was automatically stayed upon the filing of the motion and remained stayed until ten days
23
after the motion was denied. Therefore, the ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was
24
inadvertently issued prematurely.
25
The Court notes that Defendants do not argue in their motion for reconsideration or their
26
reply that there exist any meritorious grounds upon which to oppose Plaintiff’s motion to set aside
27
the dismissal of his claim as barred by the favorable termination rule. Plaintiff submitted
28
3

1

documentary evidence that his credits were restored by prison officials and given that Defendants

2

are amenable to a mere reissuance of the order, it is not unreasonable to infer that no meritorious

3

grounds for opposing the motion exist. (Reply, p. 2 n.1.)

4

Regardless, Defendants are entitled to an opportunity to respond to the motion given that the

5

action was stayed. The Court declines to vacate its order, but it will provide Defendants with fifteen

6

days within which to file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion

7

for reconsideration. If Defendants file an opposition, Plaintiff may file a reply within fifteen days.

8

If Defendants file a statement of non-opposition, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be

9

submitted. Local Rule 230(l). Once the motion has been submitted, the Court will determine the

10

appropriate course of action with regard to its existing ruling.

11

III.

Order

12

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, filed on January 11, 2013, is GRANTED;

14

2.

Within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall file

15

an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for

16

reconsideration; and

17

3.

18

If Defendants file an opposition, Plaintiff may file a reply within fifteen (15) days
from the date of service of the opposition.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:

February 21, 2013

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
B9ed48
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4