Reid v. United States of America et al

Filing 66

ORDER Adopting 60 Findings and Recommendations, Granting Plaintiff's 54 Motion to Postpone Summary Judgment to Conduct Discovery and Denying, without Prejudice, Defendant's 52 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/12/17. Twenty-One Day Deadline to Respond to Complaint. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GORDON C. REID,
Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 1:14-cv-01163-LJO-MJS (PC)

v.

13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

14

Defendants.

ORDER (1) ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, (2) GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO POSTPONE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO CONDUCT
DISCOVERY, AND (3) DENYING, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

15
(ECF Nos. 52, 54, 60)
16
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

21

rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388

22

(1971). The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against

23

Defendant Ontiveroz. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

24

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District

25

Court for the Eastern District of California.

26
27
28

On

September

11,

2017,

the

Magistrate

Judge

issued

findings

and

recommendations to grant Plaintiff’s motion to postpone Defendant’s motion for

1

summary judgment to allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery and, on that basis, to deny the

2

motion for summary judgment without prejudice. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff objected to the

3

findings and recommendations on the ground that they did not specify a date for

4

Defendant to respond to the complaint. (ECF No. 61.) Defendant also objected to the

5

findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s

6

objections. (ECF No. 63.)

7

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has

8

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

9

including the objections and responses thereto, the Court finds the findings and

10

recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

11

This matter is in its initial stages. Plaintiff’s complaint has been screened and

12

Defendant has been served. However, no discovery has occurred. In these

13

circumstances, a Rule 56(d) motion should be freely granted. Burlington N. Santa Fe

14

R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767,

15

773 (9th Cir. 2003). Nonetheless, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s motion should be

16

denied because no amount of discovery would provide evidence for Plaintiff to defeat

17

summary judgment.

18

The action proceeds on a single retaliation claim based on the allegation that

19

Defendant wrote a false incident report against Plaintiff on May 1, 2013, resulting in an

20

unwarranted use of restraints. (ECF Nos. 28, 31, 42.) Although unclear from the

21

pleadings, it appears that the allegedly false report relayed that Plaintiff refused to

22

accept a cell mate. (See ECF No. 52-8 (Declaration of Jason Ontiveroz); ECF No. 63

23

(Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s objections).) As Defendant correctly points, this

24

Court has determined with regard to Plaintiff’s claims against other defendants that the

25

writing of reports and use of restraints was a legitimate correctional response to

26

Plaintiff’s refusal to accept a cell mate. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against

27

those defendants were therefore dismissed. (ECF Nos. 42, 45.)

28
2

1

The allegations against Defendant Ontiveroz differ from the dismissed claims in

2

one significant respect – Plaintiff contends that the incident report written by Defendant

3

Ontiveroz is entirely false, and that Plaintiff did not refuse a request by Ontiveroz to

4

accept a cell mate. (ECF No. 28, 54, 63.) Of course, there can be no legitimate

5

penological interest in writing a false report, and false reports do not entitle officers to

6

qualified immunity because such conduct is not reasonable. Plaintiff is entitled to pursue

7

discovery to attempt to defeat Defendant’s claims on summary judgment. Furthermore,

8

as noted by the Magistrate Judge, it is likely that this matter will not be resolved on

9

summary judgment due to disputes of fact regarding what, if anything, occurred between

10

Plaintiff and Defendant. At the very least, summary judgment cannot be granted on the

11

record presently before the Court.

12

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

14

The findings and recommendations issued September 11, 2017 (ECF No.
60) are adopted in full;

15

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to postpone summary judgment (ECF No. 54) is granted;

16

3.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 52) is denied without

17
18

prejudice to renewal following the conclusion of discovery; and
4.

19

Defendant shall respond to the first amended complaint within twenty-one
(21) days of the date of service of this order.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

December 12, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
3