Sanchez v. City Of Fresno et al

Filing 193

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LUIS SANCHEZ, et al., 8 9 LEAD CASE: 1:12-CV-00428-LJO-SKO Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 192) v. 10 CITY OF FRESNO, ASHLEY SWEARENGIN, MARK SCOTT, BRUCE RUDD, GREG 11 BARFIELD, JERRY DYER, PHILLIP WEATERHS, MALCOLM DOUGHERTY, and 12 DOES 1-100, inclusive, 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases are current or former homeless residents of the City of 17 Fresno (“City”) who allege that their personal property, including property necessary for survival, 18 essential to health, and of personal and emotional value, was seized and immediately destroyed as part 19 of the City’s efforts to clean up homeless encampments in Downtown Fresno in late 2011 and early 20 2012. More than thirty similar cases arising out of these cleanup activities have been consolidated for 21 pretrial purposes, with the above-captioned matter serving as the lead case. See Doc. 27. 22 Plaintiff Felix Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) brings claims against the City of Fresno, Ashley 23 Swearengin, Mark Scott, Bruce Rudd, Greg Barfield, Jerry Dyer, Phillip Weathers, and Malcolm 24 Dougherty (“Defendants”), alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Fourth Amendment 25 (unlawful seizure) and Fourteenth Amendment (due process); violations of Article I, Sections 7 and 13 26 1 1 of the California Constitution; intentional infliction of emotional distress; conversion; and breach of 2 contract.1 See Case No. 1:12-cv-01161 LJO SKO, Doc. 1. Before the Court for decision is Defendants’ 3 unopposed motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s remaining claims. Doc. 192. The Court 4 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 5 6 clean up of homeless encampments in November 2011. See Doc. 192-2 at #1. Each such claim is 7 premised upon Plaintiff’s allegation that on November 7, 2011, Plaintiff resided in a tent on Santa Clara 8 Avenue in Downtown Fresno; and that on November 7, 2011, Plaintiff’s tent and personal property were 9 seized by Defendants and immediately destroyed. Id. 10 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. 15 CONCLUSION Defendants’ unopposed motion for summary judgment as to all remaining claims brought by 16 17 Plaintiff Felix Hernandez is GRANTED. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill October 16, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Other claims brought by Plaintiff have been resolved at earlier stages of this litigation. 2

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?