Hoffman v. Coyle et al

Filing 57

ORDER ADOPTING 51 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER GRANTING 47 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Without Leave to Amend; ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, With Prejudice; and ORDER DENYING 56 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Action signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/4/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARCELLAS HOFFMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:16-cv-01617-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STAY ACTION

v.
(ECF No. 56)
TIMOTHY PRESTON,

17

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, AND
DISMISSING ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE,
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

18

(ECF No. 51)

15

Defendant.

16

19
20

Plaintiff Marcellas Hoffman is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

21

in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

22

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

23

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

24

I.

25

Introduction
On October 11, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

26

recommending that Defendant Timothy Preston’s motion to dismiss be granted without leave to

27

amend and that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which

28
1

1

relief may be granted under Bivens. (ECF No. 51.) The findings and recommendations were

2

served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within

3

thirty (30) days after service. (Id.) Following an extension of time, Plaintiff filed written

4

objections to the findings and recommendations on December 2, 2019. (ECF No. 54.) On

5

December 16, 2019, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 55.)
On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “motion to place case in abeyance,” which the

6
7

Court construes as a motion to stay this action. (ECF No. 56.)

8

II.

9

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Action
The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to

10

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North

11

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay

12

bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken

13

v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). The following factors shall be considered when

14

determining if a stay is appropriate: (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting

15

of a stay”; (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go

16

forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice, measured in terms of the simplifying or

17

complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a

18

stay.” Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1972) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,

19

300 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Further, “[g]enerally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.”

20

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007).

21

If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it.

22

Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court should “balance the length of

23

any stay against the strength of the justification given for it.” Id.

24

Here, Plaintiff moves to stay this action while he attends a sentencing hearing before a

25

United States District Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania because, while he is at the hearing, he

26

will not be housed at U.S. Penitentiary Lee, his address of record, to receive any legal mail and

27

respond to any court rulings. (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff asserts that he will notify the Court and file

28

a motion to have the stay of this action lifted within thirty days after returning to U.S. Penitentiary
2

1

Lee.

2

However, at this time, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that there is sufficient

3

justification to support an indefinite stay of this action while sentencing proceedings are ongoing

4

in Pennsylvania. Initially, since Plaintiff has already filed written objections to the pending

5

October 11, 2019 findings and recommendations to grant without leave to amend Defendant’s

6

motion to dismiss, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is ripe for decision. Further, there are currently

7

no deadlines in this case requiring Plaintiff to take any action. Finally, it is Plaintiff’s duty to

8

keep his address of record updated and current so that he can receive any mail from the Court and

9

Defendant regarding this action and take appropriate responses to the Court’s rulings and the

10

opposing party’s filings. Local Rule 183(b) (“A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the

11

Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address.”).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to stay this action, (ECF No. 56), is denied.

12
13
14

III.

The October 11, 2019 Findings and Recommendations are Adopted in Full
In his objections to the October 11, 2019 findings and recommendations, Plaintiff

15

contends that the undersigned should decline to adopt the findings and recommendations and

16

deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss because his Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim is not

17

an improper expansion of the Bivens remedy.

18

First, Plaintiff argues that his Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim is not a new

19

Bivens context because the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825

20

(1994), has already recognized an implied Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim in a Bivens

21

context. However, the U.S. Supreme Court never explicitly stated in Farmer that it was

22

recognizing an implied Bivens Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim. Additionally, in

23

Ziglar v. Abbasi, ____ U.S. ____, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that

24

Bivens, Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979), and Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980)

25

“represent the only instances in which the Court has approved of an implied damages remedy

26

under the Constitution itself.” Ziglar, 137 S. Ct. at 1854-55 (emphasis added). Therefore, since

27

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim is “different in a meaningful way from” the

28

claims raised in Bivens, Davis, and Carlson, the undersigned agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
3

1

finding that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim is a new Bivens context.

2

Consequently, Plaintiff’s first objection is overruled.

3

Second, Plaintiff argues that, even if his Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim is a

4

new Bivens context, no special factors counsel hesitation in extending the Bivens remedy to his

5

claim. Specifically, Plaintiff states that the Bivens remedy should be extended to his Eighth

6

Amendment failure to protect claim because his claim does not implicate prison policy or policy-

7

making officials, his claim is the type of claim that is frequently litigated in the prison context,

8

and this is a case like Bivens or Davis in which “it is damages or nothing.” Davis, 442 U.S. at

9

245; Bivens, 403 U.S. at 410 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). However, the undersigned

10

agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that Plaintiff has or had alternative remedies

11

available to him and that legislative action suggests that Congress does not want an implied

12

damages remedy for Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

13

second objection is overruled.

14

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

15

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the

16

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper

17

analysis.

18

IV.

Order

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to stay this action, (ECF No. 56), is DENIED;

21

2.

The findings and recommendations issued on October 11, 2019, (ECF No. 51), are

22

adopted in full;

23

3.

24

Defendant Timothy Preston’s motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 47), is GRANTED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
4

1

4.

2
3

This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted under Bivens; and

5.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

January 4, 2020

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5