Mrozek v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 33

STIPULATION and ORDER Entering Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Claim Against Defendant Amaya. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/10/2018. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517
Attorney General of California
CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER, State Bar No. 230529
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
DIANA ESQUIVEL, State Bar No. 202954
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

7
8

Attorneys for Defendants Amaya, Castro, and
Espinoza

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

FRESNO DIVISION

12
13
BRAD MROZEK,

No. 1:16-cv-01308 SKO

14
15
v.
16
17
18

Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER
ENTERING PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH
AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST
DEFENDANT AMAYA

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

Judge:
Hon. Sheila K. Oberto
Trial Date:
May 22, 2018
Action Filed: September 2, 2016

19
20
21

The parties, through their respective attorneys of record, stipulate and agree that partial

22

summary judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Amaya on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

23

claim for excessive force arising from the March 15, 2015 yard incident. This agreement is based

24

on the following undisputed facts:

25

1. Plaintiff Bradley Mrozek is serving a twenty-seven-year-four-month prison

26

sentence for his 2013 felony convictions. He entered the custody of the California Department of

27

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in March 2014.

28
1
Stipulation and Order Entering Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim Against
Defendant Amaya (1:16-cv-01308 SKO)

1

2. On March 24, 2015, Plaintiff was issued a Rules Violation Report (RVR), Log No.

2

3B-15-03-031, for “resisting a peace officer” during a March 15, 2015 yard incident involving

3

Defendant Amaya. This yard incident is a basis for Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force

4

claim against Amaya.

5

3. Plaintiff was found guilty of RVR Log No. 3B-15-03-031 and assessed ninety-days

6

of credit forfeiture, among other penalties. The forfeiture of credits adversely affected the length

7

of Plaintiff’s incarceration.

8

4. RVR Log No. 3B-15-03-031 was re-issued in September 2015, and Plaintiff was

9

again found guilty of the charge of “resisting a peace officer” arising from the March 15, 2015

10

yard incident. He was assessed ninety-days credit forfeiture, among other penalties. The

11

forfeiture of credits adversely affected the length of Plaintiff’s incarceration.

12
13

5. The finding of guilty for RVR Log No. 3B-15-03-031R has not been reversed or
vacated, and the forfeited credits have not been restored.
6. Plaintiff’s excessive-force claim against Defendant Amaya arising from the March

14
15

15, 2015 yard incident, as alleged in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the complaint (ECF No. 1), is

16

barred under the favorable-termination doctrine (Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994))

17

because success on this claim will necessarily invalidate RVR Log No. 3B-15-03-031R.

18

This agreement and stipulation applies only to the yard incident at issue in this lawsuit, and

19

does not affect Plaintiff’s remaining Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Amaya,

20

Castro, and Espinoza arising from the March 15, 2015 holding-cell incident as alleged in the

21

complaint. (See Compl. ¶¶ 18-21, ECF No. 1.) The parties agree that factual disputes exist

22

concerning the holding-cell incident that precludes summary judgment.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2
Stipulation and Order Entering Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim Against
Defendant Amaya (1:16-cv-01308 SKO)

1
2
3

Each party is to bear his own costs and attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the
adjudication of the excessive-force claim arising from the yard incident.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

4
5

Dated: January 9, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

6

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

7
8

/s/ Diana Esquivel

9

DIANA ESQUIVEL
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants

10
11
12

Dated: January 8, 2018

STANLEY GOFF, ESQ.

13

/s/ Stanley Goff (as authorized 1/8/18)

14

STANLEY GOFF
Attorney for Plaintiff

15
16
17

SA2016302780
33218188.docx

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Stipulation and Order Entering Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim Against
Defendant Amaya (1:16-cv-01308 SKO)

1

ORDER

2

On January 9, 2018, the parties filed the above stipulation (Doc. 32), indicating that the

3

undisputed facts show there is no genuine dispute that Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-

4

force claim arising from the March 15, 2015, yard incident against Defendant Amaya is barred by

5

the favorable-termination doctrine. Based on the parties’ stipulation, partial summary judgment

6

is hereby GRANTED and entered in favor of Defendant Amaya against Plaintiff on this claim,

7

and each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees in connection with the adjudication of

8

the claim arising from the yard incident.

9

Based on the parties’ above stipulation, this action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth

10

Amendment claims against Defendants Amaya, Castro, and Espinoza arising from the March 15,

11

2015, holding-cell incident as alleged in the complaint. (Doc. 32.)

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 10, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

Stipulation and Order Entering Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim Against
Defendant Amaya (1:16-cv-01308 SKO)

.