Masterson v. Killen et al

Filing 159

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 90 Motion for Summary Judgment ; ORDER DENYING 118 Motion ; ORDER DENYING 120 Motion to Stay; ORDER DENYING 122 Motion ; ORDER DENYING 123 Motion for Sanctions; ORDER ADOPTING 141 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER ADOPTING 142 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 155 Motion for Extension, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/16/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL MASTERSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:11-cv-01179-DAD-SAB

v.
SUZANNE KILLEN et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. Nos. 90, 118, 120, 122, 123, 141, 142,
155)

18
19
20

Plaintiff Daniel Masterson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

21
22

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on plaintiff’s claims against

23

defendants Killen, Hampson,1 Hall, Fisher, Rodriguez, Santoro, and Tolson for retaliation in

24

violation of the First Amendment, and against defendants Killen, Hampson, Hall, Rodriguez,

25

Santoro, and Tolson for conspiracy to retaliate against plaintiff. This matter was referred to a

26

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

27
28

1

Defendant Hampson was sued under her former name “Velva Rowell.”
1

1
2

BACKGROUND
On March 7, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

3

addressing (1) the parties’ cross-motions for sanctions, and (2) defendants’ motion for summary

4

judgment. (Doc. Nos. 141, 142).

5

Regarding the motions for sanctions, the magistrate judge recommended that both of the

6

typed declarations plaintiff filed from inmate McCollum (see Doc. No. 100 at 177–78, 202–04)

7

be stricken from the record and not considered by the court in ruling upon defendants’ motion for

8

summary judgment because at a hearing McCollum denied signing the declarations and

9

disavowed knowledge of the events discussed therein. (Doc. No. 142 at 9.) The magistrate judge

10

further recommended that all other requests for the imposition of sanctions—including

11

defendants’ request for imposition of monetary and terminating sanctions—be denied; that

12

plaintiff’s request for leave to file a sur-reply to address the false declaration allegations (Doc.

13

No. 122) be denied as having been rendered moot; and that plaintiff’s request to stay this matter

14

pending an evidentiary hearing (Doc. No. 120) also be denied as having been rendered moot.

15

(Doc. No. 142 at 9–11.)

16

With respect to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the magistrate judge

17

recommended that the motion be granted in part and that this action survive summary judgment

18

and proceed only on the following claims: (1) plaintiff’s claim that defendants Hampson and

19

Killen retaliated against plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment by having his job

20

reassigned, (2) plaintiff’s claim that defendant Santoro and defendant Rodriguez retaliated against

21

plaintiff for engaging in protected conduct in violation of the First Amendment, based on threats

22

to have him placed in Ad-Seg on August 11, 2011; (3) plaintiff’s claim that defendants Hampson,

23

Killen, Rodriguez, and Santoro conspired to retaliate against him; and (4) plaintiff’s state law

24

claim for personal property loss arising out of an alleged retaliatory cell search conducted on

25

December 27, 2011, and ordered by defendant Killen. (Doc. No. 141.)

26

Both findings and recommendations provided that the parties could file written objections

27

thereto within thirty days of service. (See Doc. No. 141 at 28; Doc. No. 142 at 12.) On May 1,

28

2017, the court received plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and
2

1

recommendations which were dated April 5, 2017. (Doc. No. 149.) Plaintiff’s objections are

2

directed at the findings and recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion for

3

summary judgment be granted in part, although plaintiff also offers therein some clarification

4

regarding his motion for imposition of sanctions. On May 4, 2017, after being granted an

5

extension of time in which to do so (see Doc. No. 146), defendants filed their objections to the

6

findings and recommendations on the cross-motions for sanctions. (Doc. No. 150.) On June 2,

7

2017, plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s objections. (Doc. No. 157.)2

8

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

9

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the parties’

10

objections, and for the reasons set forth below, the court finds that both pending findings and

11

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis and will adopt them.

12

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS

13
14

Plaintiff does not object to the recommendation that his motion for sanctions be denied.
(See Doc. No. 149 at 2.)
Defendants, however, object to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, on

15
16

the grounds that he recommended denial of defendants’ request for monetary and terminating

17

sanctions. (Doc. No. 150.) Specifically, defendants contend that dismissal of this action is an

18

appropriate sanction because plaintiff’s misconduct is likely to continue throughout this litigation,

19

and that the magistrate judge distinguished applicable case law on grounds that are immaterial

20

and unsupported. (See id.)

21

Here, the magistrate judge evaluated the testimony, evidence, arguments, and applicable

22

case law and determined defendants did not adequately establish bad faith on the part of plaintiff

23

to support the imposition of sanctions. As defendants concede, there is no evidence that plaintiff

24

personally forged inmate McCollum’s signature on the two declarations, and the magistrate judge

25

did not find the other evidence relied upon by defendants in seeking terminating sanctions to be

26
27
28

2

Although plaintiff’s response was untimely, the court will nonetheless consider it.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a response to defendants’
objections (Doc. No. 155) is denied as having been rendered moot.
3

1

persuasive. Accordingly, the court finds no error in the magistrate judge’s findings and

2

recommendation, will adopt them in this regard and will decline to impose additional sanctions on

3

plaintiff at this time.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4
5

Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that summary judgment be granted in defendants’

6

favor with respect to his retaliation claims against defendants Hampson and Killen to the extent

7

those claims are based on the issuance of administrative and informal chronos. The magistrate

8

judge determined that plaintiff had failed to present any evidence on summary judgment that the

9

issuance of the chronos was adverse to him, even if they did contain false statements. (See Doc.

10

No. 141 at 18.) Plaintiff objects that the chronos were adverse because he was recently denied a

11

position based on them, and because they can be considered by a parole board when considering

12

whether to grant or deny parole. However, plaintiff again fails to identify any evidence in support

13

of the first assertion, and the second assertion is purely speculative.

14

Plaintiff also objects to the recommendation that summary judgment be granted in favor

15

of defendant Fisher because, plaintiff argues, the threat of placement in Ad-Seg is an adverse

16

action. The magistrate judge’s recommendation that summary judgment be granted in favor of

17

defendant Fisher is not based on any finding that a threat of placement in Ad-Seg is insufficient to

18

constitute an adverse action; rather it is based on plaintiff’s failure to present evidence

19

establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant Fisher acted

20

with a retaliatory motive based on protected conduct, and because plaintiff’s eventual placement

21

in Ad-Seg served a legitimate penological interest. (See id. at 19–22.) In his objections, plaintiff

22

has not refuted these findings upon which the recommendation was based.

23

CONCLUSION

24

For the reasons set forth above:

25

1. The findings and recommendations regarding the parties’ cross-motions for sanctions,

26

filed on March 7, 2017 (Doc. No. 142) are adopted in full;

27

/////

28

/////
4

1

2. The declarations of inmate Jaymes Thomas McCollum submitted by plaintiff in

2

support of his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 100

3

at 177–78, 20–204) are stricken from the record;

4

3. Defendants’ request for terminating and monetary sanctions (Doc. No. 118) is denied;

5

4. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 123) is denied;

6

5. Plaintiff’s motion for a stay pending an evidentiary hearing (Doc. No. 120) is denied

7

as having been rendered moot;
6. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply (Doc. No. 122) is denied as having been

8
9

rendered moot;

10

7. The findings and recommendations addressing defendants’ motion for summary

11

judgment, filed on March 7, 2017 (Doc. No. 141) are adopted full;
8. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 90) is granted in part, as

12
13

follows:

14

a. Summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants Tolson, Fisher, and Hall and

15

they are dismissed from this action;

16

b. Summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants Hampson and Killen as to

17

plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, only to the extent that claim is based

18

on the issuance of chronos; and

19

c. Summary judgment is granted in favor of defendant Santoro as to plaintiff’s First

20

Amendment retaliation claim, only to the extent that claim is based on plaintiff’s

21

placement in Ad-Seg and transfer from SATF; and

22

9. This matter shall now proceed only on the following claims:

23

a. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim against defendants Hampson and Killen for

24

retaliation against plaintiff based on his job reassignment;

25

b. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim against defendants Santoro and Rodriguez for

26

retaliation against plaintiff with respect to threats with Ad-Seg placement on

27

August 11, 2011;

28

/////
5

1

c. Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim against defendants Hampson, Killen, Rodriguez, and

2

Santoro with respect to retaliation against plaintiff; and

3

d. Plaintiff’s state law claim for personal property loss arising out of an alleged

4
5

retaliatory cell search on December 27, 2011, ordered by defendant Killen; and
10. Plaintiff’s requests for an extension of time to file a response to defendants’ objections

6
7
8

(see Doc. Nos. 155, 157) is denied as having been rendered moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 16, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6