King v. Martinez, et al.

Filing 39

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's 36 37 Motions Relating to Alleged Due Process Violations signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 04/06/2017. Referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 5/11/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIO KING,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

W.S. WADKINS,

15

Defendant.

16

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00433-LJO-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
RELATING TO ALLEGED DUE PROCESS
VIOLATIONS
[ECF Nos. 36, 37]

Plaintiff Mario King is a state prisoner and appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed two separate documents entitled, “Motion for the Court to

20

Take Notice of Evidence,” and “Notice Re Process Denied.” (ECF Nos. 36, 37.) From review of

21

Plaintiff’s motions, the Court cannot discern the exact relief Plaintiff is requesting other than a finding

22

that Defendant Wadkins failed Plaintiff’s due process rights. Given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court

23

will construe Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons,

24

Plaintiff’s motions must be denied.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

I.

2

RELEVANT HISTORY

3
4
5
6

This action is proceeding against Defendant W.S. Wadkins for alleged due process violations
relating to a rules violation for fighting with another inmate.
Defendant Wadkins filed an answer to the complaint on August 18, 2016, and on August 23,
2016, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order.

7

II.

8

DISCUSSION

9

Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary judgment if

10

the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

11

judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (quotation marks omitted); Washington Mut. Inc. v.

12

U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party’s position, whether it be that a fact is disputed

13

or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including

14

but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials

15

cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot

16

produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted).

17

The Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required

18

to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031

19

(9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).

20

In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court does not make credibility

21

determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984 (quotation marks and

22

citation omitted), and it must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party

23

and determine whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes entry of judgment, Comite de

24

Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d at 942 (quotation marks and

25

citation omitted).

26

With regard to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, as the party with the burden of

27

persuasion at trial, Plaintiff must establish “beyond controversy every essential element of” his

28

affirmative claims. S. Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting
2

1

W. Shwarzer, California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 14:124-127 (2001)).

2

The moving party’s evidence is judged by the same standard of proof applicable at trial. Anderson v.

3

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof as the moving party on summary judgment.

4
5

Plaintiff simply restates the allegations set forth in the operative complaint, namely, that staff had a

6

hearing on his rules violation for fighting without presenting exculpatory evidence and refers only to

7

the rules violation report, informational chrono, and a medical evaluation relating to the fight.

8

Plaintiff, as the moving party, is required to establish every element of his claim, showing that there

9

are no disputed issues of facts. Plaintiff’s motion is merely a repeat of the allegations and evidence

10

presented in the operative complaint, which does not entitled Plaintiff to summary judgment as a

11

matter of law. Further, Plaintiff has failed to refer to any specific undisputed facts, and has failed to

12

submit a separate statement of undisputed facts. Such a statement “shall enumerate discretely each of

13

the specific material facts relied upon in support of the motion and cite the particular portions of any

14

pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory, answer, admission or other document relied upon to

15

establish that fact.” Local Rule 260(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden on

16

summary judgment and his motions must be denied.

17

III.

18

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for

19
20

summary judgment be denied.

21

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

22

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after

23

being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections with the

24

Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

25

Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

2

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

6

April 6, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4