Brodheim v. Dickinson, et. al.

Filing 109

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/6/13 ORDERING that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 63, is GRANTED; The Clerk is directed to re-open this case; and Plaintiff may, within 21 days of the date of this order, file an amended complaint omitting his ex post facto claims. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL BRODHEIM, NO. CIV. S-05-1512 LKK/GGH Plaintiff, 12 13 14 v. LOUIE DININNI, et al., Defendants. 15 / 16 MICHAEL BRODHEIM, Plaintiff, 17 NO. CIV. S-06-2326 LKK/GGH 18 19 v. M. VEAL, et al., O R D E R 20 Defendants. / 21 22 Plaintiff in the civil rights case is a California state 23 prisoner serving a term of imprisonment of 25 years to life with 24 the possibility of parole, for the crime of murder. 25 Dininni, Civ. S-05-1512, Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) (ECF No. 26 Brodheim v. 1 47) ¶ 5.1 He 2 California’s parole system violates his rights under the Due 3 Process and Ex Post Facto clauses of the U.S. Constitution. has filed this civil rights case alleging that 4 On March 29, 2012, the Magistrate Judge ordered plaintiff to 5 “show cause why it [the civil rights complaint] should not be 6 dismissed in whole or in part as duplicative of, or subsumed 7 within, the class action in Gilman v. Brown, Case No. Civ-S-05-0830 8 LKK GGH, or simply dismissed as moot.”2 9 (“OSC”) (ECF No. 51) at 2. Order of March 29, 2012 10 On May 7, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and 11 Recommendations, finding that plaintiff was a class member of 12 Gilman, and recommending to this court that the civil rights 13 complaint should accordingly be dismissed in its entirety, without 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 On May 23, 2005, plaintiff joined the lawsuit filed by Richard M. Gilman, as a co-plaintiff. See Gilman v. Welch, ECF No. 5 (amended complaint), 2:05-cv-830 LKK (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2005). On July 27, 2005, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case severed plaintiff from the Gilman action, which at the time was an individual action, not a class action. Order of July 27, 2007 (ECF No. 14). On March 7, 2007, the Magistrate Judge stayed all discovery in this case. Order of March 7, 2007 (ECF No. 42). On March 4, 2009, this court certified the Gilman matter as a Rule 23(b)(2) class action. Gilman v. Davis, ECF No. 182, 2:05-cv-830 LKK (E.D. Cal. March 4, 2009) (Karlton, J.). 2 In the related habeas case, Brodheim v. Dickinson, 2:06-cv2326 LKK (E.D. Cal.), plaintiff notified the court that the Board of Parole Hearings had determined to grant him parole at a January 11, 2012 hearing. However, on June 8, 2012, the Governor reversed the Board, and plaintiff was accordingly denied parole. See Brodheim v. Dickinson, supra, ECF No. 92 (Joint Status Report). It appears that the Board ruled in plaintiff’s favor again on January 8, 2013, but the Governor will have until June 2013 to review (reverse, affirm or remand) that ruling (assuming the Board does not re-visit its decision before then). See Brodheim v. Dickinson, supra, ECF No. 102. 2 1 prejudice to the ruling in the Gilman class. Order of May 7, 2012 2 (ECF No. 56). 3 and Recommendations in full, and ordered this civil rights case 4 dismissed “without prejudice to the ruling in the Gilman class.” 5 Order of August 24, 2012 (ECF No. 61). On August 24, 2012, this court adopted the Findings 6 Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the August 24, 2012 7 Order on the grounds that after that Order issued, this court de- 8 certified the Gilman class with respect to the Due Process claims, 9 and the Gilman plaintiffs have abandoned their Due Process claims.3 10 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of August 24, 2012 Order 11 (ECF No. 63). 12 Statement of Non-Opposition). Defendants have not filed an opposition (nor a 13 The court may grant plaintiff relief from a prior order if 14 applying it prospectively “is no longer equitable,” or for “any 15 other reason that justifies relief.” 16 & 17 plaintiff’s entire case – including the Due Process claims – was 18 that it was subsumed within the Gilman class action. 19 has now been undermined by subsequent events. 20 plaintiff’s Due Process claims are no longer subsumed within 21 Gilman, 22 plaintiffs have abandoned those claims. 23 supra, ECF Nos. 445 (de-certifying the class) & 432 at 4-5 (b)(6). as The that basis class for has this been Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) court’s prior decertified dismissal of That basis Specifically, and the Gilman See Gilman v. Brown, 24 3 25 26 Plaintiff has not sought reconsideration of the court’s dismissal of his ex post facto claims, nor has he sought permission to opt out of the Gilman classes as they relate to the ex post facto claims. 3 1 (abandoning “the 2 Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859 (2011)). 3 1. due process claims” that survive Accordingly: 4 remaining 5 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 63), is GRANTED; 6 2. The Clerk is directed to re-open this case; and 7 3. Plaintiff may, within 21 days of the date of this order, 8 9 10 file an amended complaint omitting his ex post facto claims.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 6, 2013. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 4 23 24 25 26 The Due Process claims do not appear to be frivolous on their face. See Gilman v. Brown, 2012 WL 1969200 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (Karlton, J.) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss prisoners’ Due Process claims regarding the California parole system on the basis of Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correction Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979), and Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859 (2011)). Accordingly, amendment of the complaint appears appropriate. 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?