Matthews v. Holland

Filing 77

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 06/12/19 ORDERING that within twenty days of the date of this order, each party shall file either: (1) a statement that the party finds a stay pending the Rico decision appropriate, or (2) a short memorandum of points and authorities explaining why a stay is not appropriate. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IVAN LEE MATTHEWS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

No. 1:14-cv-1959 KJM DB P

KIM HOLLAND,

15

ORDER

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action under

17
18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case concerns the use of the Guard One security check system at the

19

California Correctional Institution (“CCI”). The court related this case to five other cases

20

involving use of the Guard One system in California prisons: Murillo v. Holland, et al., No. 1:15-

21

cv-0266 KJM DB P; Wilson v. Beard, et al., No. 1:15-cv-1424 KJM DB P; Rico v. Beard, et al.,

22

No. 2:17-cv-1402 KJM DB P; Suarez v. Beard, et al., No. 2:18-cv-0340 KJM DB P; and Lipsey

23

v. Norum, et al., No. 2:18-cv-0362 KJM DB P.1 In addition, these Guard One cases have been

24

related to the class action Coleman v. Newsom, No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P. The Guard One

25

system was implemented in the prisons pursuant to an order issued in Coleman.

26

////

27
28

1

Counsel recently filed a notice of a seventh related case: Harris v. Sexton, No. 1:18-cv-0080
DAD SAB P. The court has not yet related Harris to the other Guard One cases.
1

In Rico, the district court considered defendants’ motion to dismiss the action based on,

1
2

among other things, qualified immunity. On March 5, 2019, the court held that qualified

3

immunity protected the high level supervisory defendants from this suit but that the remaining

4

defendants, those who reviewed plaintiff’s appeals and those who conducted the security tests,

5

were not so protected. (No. 2:17-cv-1402 KJM DB P, ECF No. 102.) The defendants remaining

6

in the case then appealed. (Id., ECF No. 103.) On appeal, they argue that the district court erred

7

in denying them qualified immunity. See Appellants’ Mediation Questionnaire, Rico v. Ducart,

8

et al., No. 19-15541 (9th Cir. Mar. 29, 2019). The Rico appeal remains pending in the Ninth

9

Circuit. 2

10

In the present case, plaintiff identifies one defendant - Kim Holland, CCI Warden. On

11

January 18, 2019, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 68.) One of

12

defendant’s arguments is that she is entitled to qualified immunity.

13

This court finds that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Rico will very likely affect the

14

analysis of the qualified immunity issue in this case. Therefore, a stay of these proceedings may

15

be the best use of the parties’ time and judicial resources. This court seeks the parties’ positions

16

on the imposition of a stay pending the Ninth Circuit’s Rico decision.

17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days of the date of this order,

18

each party shall file either: (1) a statement that the party finds a stay pending the Rico decision

19

appropriate, or (2) a short memorandum of points and authorities explaining why a stay is not

20

appropriate.

21

Dated: June 12, 2019

22
23
24
25

DLB:9/DB/prisoner-civil rights/matt1915.rico stay

26
27
28

The appeal was released from mediation on May 6, 2019. Appellants’ opening brief is due July
1, 2019.
2
2