Goolsby v. Cate et al
Filing
91
ORDER ADOPTING 83 & 85 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Exhaustion and Defendants' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/13/14. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
THOMAS GOOLSBY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
GENTRY, et al.,
15
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:11cv01773 LJO DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT BASED ON EXHAUSTION
AND DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Documents 83 and 85)
16
17
Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
18
19
20
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On November 26, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss due process claim based on
21
22
exhaustion and failure to state a claim.1
23
On April 1, 2014, based on the parties’ submission of outside evidence, the Court
24
converted the portion of the motion to dismiss based on 12(b)(6) into a motion for partial
25
summary judgment.
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff’s retaliation claims were not addressed by these motions.
1
1
2
3
4
On April 10, 2014, based on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162
(9th Cir. 2014), the Court converted the exhaustion portion of the motion to dismiss into a
motion for summary judgment.
The matters were referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
5
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
On September 19, 2014, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion be granted.
On September 29, 2014, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that
Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment be granted.
The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that
any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days.
13
Plaintiff filed objections on October 22, 2014. Defendants did not file a response.
14
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
15
16
17
18
19
a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s
objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record
and proper analysis.
Exhaustion
Plaintiff’s due process claim against Defendants Holland and Gutierrez is based on their
20
21
22
23
review of Plaintiff’s gang validation appeal at the Second Level. The Magistrate Judge found
that given the undisputed facts, Plaintiff was required to file a separate appeal to address his
claims against Defendants Holland and Gutierrez. In so finding, the Magistrate Judge rejected
24
Plaintiff’s argument that he could not file a separate appeal, and that his appeal to the Third
25
Level necessarily included his claim against Defendants Holland and Gutierrez related to their
26
review at the Second Level.
27
28
2
1
2
3
4
In his objections, Plaintiff again argues that he could not have filed a separate appeal
because “it is impossible and not allowed.” ECF No. 88, at 2. The Magistrate Judge addressed
this argument, explaining that Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that
administrative remedies were unavailable. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822-823 (9th Cir.
5
2010).
6
Finally, Plaintiff contends that there is a dispute of material fact given the Title 15
7
8
9
10
regulation and the statement in Plaintiff’s declaration that he could not have filed a separate
appeal. Plaintiff’s statement in his declaration is his opinion, however, and does not create a
dispute of fact.
11
Due Process
12
Plaintiff contends that he feels “cheated” by the Magistrate Judge’s decision to convert
13
Defendants’ motion to dismiss into a motion for partial summary judgment based on the outside
14
evidence submitted by the parties. He states that he based his opposition on motion to dismiss
15
standards, yet after briefing, “and with no warning,” the Magistrate Judge applied the standards
16
17
for a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 88, at 4. He states that he was denied the
opportunity to conduct discovery on the due process issues and file supplemental briefing.
18
Plaintiff’s argument is wholly undermined by the Magistrate Judge’s April 1, 2014, order
19
converting the motion. In the order, the Court notified Plaintiff of the requirements of opposing
20
21
22
23
24
a motion for summary judgment, including his right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)
request to conduct discovery. The Court also specifically stated, “The parties SHALL submit
any further briefing within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order.” ECF No. 58, at
2.
Despite the opportunity, Plaintiff did not file a Rule 56(d) motion or submit supplemental
25
26
briefing.2 Nonetheless, and ensuring that Plaintiff had every opportunity to be heard, the Court
27
2
28
Plaintiff’s request for 56(d) discovery on April 11, 2014, was related to the exhaustion issue. The parties’
supplemental briefing was also related to exhaustion.
3
1
2
granted Plaintiff’s request to file a surreply to address the arguments on the merits of the due
process claim.
3
4
5
Finally, Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Defendants did
not violate his due process rights by relying on certain information to validate him. Indeed,
Plaintiff admits that the facts “are not really in dispute.” ECF No. 88, at 4. Instead, Plaintiff
6
7
8
9
contends that there is a dispute related to the inferences Defendants are permitted to draw from
the information. This is a legal issue, however, and the Court applies this law to the undisputed
facts. The Magistrate Judge explained:
10
Plaintiff admits, and it is therefore undisputed, that Plaintiff had the names,
prisoner numbers and addresses of inmates Baumgaertel and Pandolfi. He argues,
however, that he had legitimate legal reasons for having their information. For example,
Plaintiff contends that Inmate Baumgaertel was witness in one of Plaintiff’s legal actions,
and that the Court required Plaintiff to submit his name and prison number. Plaintiff
explains that he had Inmate Pandolfi’s contact information because he was involved in a
2007 cell extraction for which Plaintiff contemplated litigation.
11
12
13
14
Again, however, the fact that there may have been an alternate explanation as to
why Plaintiff possessed their information does not, alone, preclude use of the
information. Hill, 472 U.S. at 457. Nor do Defendants have to prove that Plaintiff had
their information for gang related reasons. See Andrade v. Lewis, 2013 WL 5694331, *6
(N.D.Cal. 2013) (“In light of the well-recognized danger posed by prison gangs, prison
officials properly could determine that, by being affiliated with a gang, the inmate does
pose a threat and endanger institutional security because prison gangs endanger
institutional security.”).
15
16
17
18
19
ECF No. 85, at 11.
20
Plaintiff’s disagreement with the law does not render the Magistrate Judge’s findings
21
22
incorrect or unsupported.
23
///
24
///
25
26
27
///
///
///
28
4
1
2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
3
4
The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 9, 2014 (Document 83) and
September 29, 2014 (Document 85) are ADOPTED in full;
2.
5
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion (Document 33-1)
is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s due process claim against Defendants Holland and
6
Gutierrez is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
7
8
3.
process claim is the only claim against him;
9
10
4.
5.
13
14
Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Eubanks, Medrano, and Tyree on the
due process claim;
6.
15
16
Defendants’ partial motion for summary judgment (Document 33-2) is
GRANTED;
11
12
Defendant Gutierrez is DISMISSED from this action as the unexhausted due
This action SHALL proceed on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendants
Gentry, Noyce, Eubanks, Tyree, Medrano, Holman, Holland and Steadman; and
7.
17
Defendants SHALL file a responsive pleading within thirty (30) days of the date
of service of this order.
18
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
November 13, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?