Hazeltine v. Hicks et al

Filing 66

ORDER DENYING Motion to Declare a Conflict of Interest 55 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/13/17. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICK A. HAZELTINE,
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DECLARE A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(ECF No. 55.)

FRANCES HICKS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff Rick A. Hazeltine (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in

22

forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now

23

proceeds with Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on July 6, 2015, on the following

24

claim: Excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Ian

25

Young, Benjamin Gamez, Rashaun Casper, Julius Oldan, Porfirio Sanchez Negrete, David

26
27
28
1

1

Avilia, Rickey Smith, and Charles Ho (collectively “Defendants”). (ECF No. 27.) 1 Counsel

2

for Defendants is employed by the Office of the California Attorney General.

3

On October 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to declare a conflict of interest

4

concerning the Office of the California Attorney General. (ECF No. 55.) On January 27, 2017,

5

Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 64.) On February 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a reply.

6

(ECF No. 65.) The motion has been submitted upon the record without oral argument pursuant

7

to Local Rule 230(l).
Parties’ Positions

8

B.

9

Plaintiff seeks a court order declaring that a conflict of interest exists concerning the

10

Office of the California Attorney General because a claim of Plaintiff’s abuse at Coalinga State

11

Hospital was reported to the Department of Justice four years ago pursuant to the Elder Justice

12

Act of 2009.2 Plaintiff asserts that the present § 1983 case originated from the reported claim

13

identified as Elder Abuse claim #SOC 341, case #1309-1381. Plaintiff expresses concern that

14

as a result of the report, Defendants’ counsel in this case may be in possession of information

15

that Plaintiff is not aware of, which may affect this action. Plaintiff requests the court to

16

recognize the potential for unforeseen problems and declare a conflict of interest on these

17

grounds.

18

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion lacks merit on its face because

19

Plaintiff filed a federal elder claim under the Federal Elder Abuse Act of 2009, and his claim

20

would be administered by a federal agency, not the State of California. Defense counsel

21

declares that Defendants do not have documents in their possession pertaining to Plaintiff’s

22

alleged claim, and the California Department of Justice has no record of any elder abuse claim

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

On August 21, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing all remaining claims from this
action. (ECF No. 29.)
2

The Elder Justice Act of 2009 (42 U.S.C §§ 1320b–25, 1395i–3a, 1397j, 1397j–1, 1397k,
1397k–1 to 1397k–3, 1397l, 1397m, 1397m–1 to 1397m–5) encompasses laws imposing obligations on federal
and state governments and nursing facilities requiring them to ensure that nursing facility residents receive certain
benefits. Schwerdtfeger v. Alden Long Grove Rehab. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., No. 13 C 8316, 2014 WL
1884471, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 12, 2014). The Act requires each facility to report any reasonable suspicion of a
crime against any individual who is a resident of, or is receiving care from, the facility. 42 U.S.C § 1320b-25(b).
2

1

filed by Plaintiff. (Decl. of John M. Feser, Jr. at ¶¶ 3, 4.) Defendants also assert that Plaintiff

2

does not mention the claim in his complaint, has not provided any evidence that the claim

3

exists, and fails to show how the purported elder abuse claim relates to this case.

4

C.

5

A conflict of interest refers to a situation when someone, such as a lawyer or public

6

official, has competing professional or personal obligations or personal or financial interests

7

that would make it difficult to fulfill his duties fairly.3 http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c095.htm.

8

District courts are well equipped to consider the particulars of a conflict of interest, along with

9

all the other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an abuse of discretion has occurred.

10

Discussion

Saffon v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan, 522 F.3d 863, 868–69 (9th Cir. 2008)
After consideration of Plaintiff’s motion and Defendants’ opposition, the court finds no

11
12

evidence that a conflict of interest exists. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied.

13

III.

14
15

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to declare a

conflict of interest, filed on October 5, 2016, is DENIED.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 13, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

The court finds no well-defined legal standard for conflict-of-interest applicable here.
3