Goolsby v. Cate et al

Filing 149

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/16/2015 denying 141 Motion to Strike and denying 144 Motion to Supplement as moot. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
GENTRY, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE
(Document 141)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO SUPPLEMENT AS MOOT
(Document 144)

16
17

Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

19

Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Gentry, Noyce, Eubanks, Tyree,

20

Medrano, Holman, Holland and Steadman.

21

Defendants’ May 15, 2015, motion for summary judgment is pending. The motion was

22

originally filed with an alternative request to order Plaintiff to post security as a vexatious litigant.

23

Defendants withdrew this portion of their motion on November 19, 2015.

24

Prior to the withdrawal, Plaintiff moved to strike the Declaration of Ellen Hung, submitted in

25

response to Plaintiff’s opposition. Plaintiff also moved to strike an argument relating to his Aryan

26

Brotherhood (“AB”) Validation made in Defendants’ reply. Defendants opposed the motion on

27

November 30, 2015, and Plaintiff filed his reply on December 9, 2015. The motion is deemed

28

submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
1

1

DISCUSSION

2
3

Defendants have withdrawn their request for an order requiring Plaintiff to post a bond, as
well as Ms. Hung’s declaration. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to strike it is moot.

4
5

Insofar as Plaintiff argues that sanctions continue to be appropriate, his request is denied.
There is no indication that Ms. Hung’s declaration was submitted in bad faith.1
Finally, Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ arguments related to Plaintiff’s AB

6
7

validation made in their reply, his motion is denied. Plaintiff believes that the argument that he

8

would have been validated anyway was made for the first time in the reply. However, Defendants

9

first raised the issue of Plaintiff’s AB validation in their moving papers, explaining that Plaintiff was

10

validated on May 5, 2011, and that it was not uncommon for a prisoner to be a member of several

11

White-supremacist gangs. Plaintiff responded to this in his opposition to Defendants’ undisputed

12

facts.
To the extent that Plaintiff argues that this is a new argument, i.e., “that the AB validation

13
14

would have occurred anyway without the NLR validation,” he is mistaken. ECF No. 147, at 2. In

15

their motion for summary judgment, Defendants argue that a retaliation claim fails if the adverse

16

action would have been taken anyway. In explaining their argument and the evidence of gang

17

affiliation, they note that Plaintiff was already a validated as an AB member. ECF No. 111-1 at 29,

18

32. In their reply, Defendants use the AB validation to argue that Plaintiff’s contention regarding his

19

retaliatory NLR validation is implausible. Plaintiff does not contest that he was validated as an AB

20

member. This is not the type of “new argument” that is not permitted in a reply. Plaintiff does not

21

need to explain why he believes that his AB validation should not have occurred because it is not an

22

issue in the lawsuit. The Court is capable of determining relevant facts and arguments without

23

additional briefing.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

1

Plaintiff also fails to set forth his actual out-of-pocket expenses which, given the length of the motion and other
briefing, are likely minimal.

2

1
2

Plaintiff’s motion to strike and for the imposition of sanctions (Document 141) is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his motion to strike (Document 144) is DENIED AS MOOT.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

December 16, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3