Sanchez v. City Of Fresno et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER Granting Unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment 192 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/16/14. (Verduzco, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LUIS SANCHEZ, et al.,
LEAD CASE: 1:12-CV-00428-LJO-SKO
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (DOC. 192)
CITY OF FRESNO, ASHLEY SWEARENGIN,
MARK SCOTT, BRUCE RUDD, GREG
BARFIELD, JERRY DYER, PHILLIP
WEATERHS, MALCOLM DOUGHERTY, and
DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases are current or former homeless residents of the City of
Fresno (“City”) who allege that their personal property, including property necessary for survival,
essential to health, and of personal and emotional value, was seized and immediately destroyed as part
of the City’s efforts to clean up homeless encampments in Downtown Fresno in late 2011 and early
2012. More than thirty similar cases arising out of these cleanup activities have been consolidated for
pretrial purposes, with the above-captioned matter serving as the lead case. See Doc. 27.
Plaintiff Felix Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) brings claims against the City of Fresno, Ashley
Swearengin, Mark Scott, Bruce Rudd, Greg Barfield, Jerry Dyer, Phillip Weathers, and Malcolm
Dougherty (“Defendants”), alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Fourth Amendment
(unlawful seizure) and Fourteenth Amendment (due process); violations of Article I, Sections 7 and 13
of the California Constitution; intentional infliction of emotional distress; conversion; and breach of
contract.1 See Case No. 1:12-cv-01161 LJO SKO, Doc. 1. Before the Court for decision is Defendants’
unopposed motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s remaining claims. Doc. 192. The Court
decides this motions on the record without a hearing, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).
All parties agree that all of Plaintiff’s remaining claims arise out of Defendants’ involvement in a
clean up of homeless encampments in November 2011. See Doc. 192-2 at #1. Each such claim is
premised upon Plaintiff’s allegation that on November 7, 2011, Plaintiff resided in a tent on Santa Clara
Avenue in Downtown Fresno; and that on November 7, 2011, Plaintiff’s tent and personal property were
seized by Defendants and immediately destroyed. Id.
However, the undisputed factual record reveals that Plaintiff actually resided in a housing facility
11 operated by a nonprofit organization on November 6 and 7, 2011. Id. at ## 3-5. In light of the
12 undisputed facts, Plaintiff cannot prevail on any of his remaining claims. Accordingly, summary
13 judgment is proper because “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
14 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
Defendants’ unopposed motion for summary judgment as to all remaining claims brought by
17 Plaintiff Felix Hernandez is GRANTED.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
October 16, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Other claims brought by Plaintiff have been resolved at earlier stages of this litigation.
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?