Rios v. Tilton, et. al.
Filing
189
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/22/15 ordering that plaintiff may proceed with his retaliation claims against defendants Parker and Mayfield. Plaintiff will be permitted to call prisoner Asofa Tafilele as a witness at trial. The court hereby reopens discovery for 60 days for the limited purpose of allowing defendants to take Mr. Tafilele's deposition if they so choose. Plaintiff will not be permitted to obtain visitor log records for the administrative segregatio n unit at CSP-SAC for the dates of June 7 and 8, 2006, as it appears to the court that plaintiff has waited too long to reopen discovery for the purpose of obtaining these documents, and the additional potential discovery that they would necessitate. The parties are to brief the court regarding the following matters, and any others that they believe will be helpful to conducting trial in this matter. Plaintiff is directed to file his initial brief no later than 60 days after docketing of this order. Defendants are directed to file their opposition no later than 45 days thereafter. Plaintiff may file a reply no later than 14 days after the filing of defendants' opposition. (See order for further details)(Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RENO FUENTES RIOS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:07-cv-0790 KJN P
v.
ORDER
J.E. TILTON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through appointed counsel, with a civil rights
17
18
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds against three defendants on claims related to
19
his validation as an associate of a prison gang while housed at California State Prison-Sacramento
20
(“CSP-Sac”).1 Defendants Brandon and Parker are alleged to have violated plaintiff’s procedural
21
due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, while defendants Parker and Mayfield are
22
alleged to have retaliated against plaintiff for exercising his First Amendment right to file prison
23
grievances.
24
On January 15, 2015, the parties appeared before the court for a pretrial conference.
25
Pursuant to court order, the parties previously filed a joint statement that addressed: (i) suggested
26
modifications to the Amended Pretrial Order, filed September 19, 2014 (ECF No. 171);
27
28
1
Plaintiff is currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison.
1
1
(ii) whether a further settlement conference should be scheduled in the action; (iii) dates on which
2
the parties would not be available for a settlement conference and five-day trial; and (iv) other
3
matters the parties considered relevant.
Having reviewed the parties’ joint statement, and in light of the agreements, discussion
4
5
and views expressed at the pretrial conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
6
1. Plaintiff may proceed with his retaliation claims against defendants Parker and
Mayfield.2
7
8
2. Plaintiff will be permitted to call prisoner Asofa Tafilele as a witness at trial. The
9
court hereby reopens discovery for 60 days for the limited purpose of allowing
10
defendants to take Mr. Tafilele’s deposition if they so choose. Plaintiff’s counsel is
11
cautioned that, before calling Mr. Tafilele as a witness, they should ascertain
12
(i) whether Mr. Tafilele has firsthand knowledge of the events regarding which he will
13
testify, (ii) the reason(s) why Mr. Tafilele’s memory of events that took place nearly
14
nine years ago is reliable, and (iii) whether Mr. Tafilele was present and able to
15
observe all events involving plaintiff during the time period covered by his anticipated
16
testimony.
17
3. Plaintiff will not be permitted to obtain visitor log records for the administrative
18
segregation unit at CSP-Sac for the dates of June 7 and 8, 2006, as it appears to the
19
court that plaintiff has waited too long to reopen discovery for the purpose of
20
obtaining these documents, and the additional potential discovery that they would
21
necessitate.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
In so ruling, the court follows the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283 (9th
Cir. 2003). In light of Bruce, defendants cannot assert that plaintiff’s “validation served a
legitimate penological purpose, even though he may have arguably ended up where he belonged.”
Id. at 1289 (emphasis in original) (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.3d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985)).
Accordingly, defendants may not seek to introduce either (i) the evidence used to validate
plaintiff as a gang associate, or (ii) the court’s finding that plaintiff was validated on the basis of
“some evidence” in order to argue that the validation served a “legitimate penological purpose,”
and therefore, that they are exempt from liability for retaliation. Defendants should not attempt to
re-open this issue in responding to the court’s order herein. Nevertheless, there may be other
legitimate purposes for introducing this information, and it is hoped that the parties will explore
this topic in their briefing.
2
1
4. The court will not order the parties to conduct a further settlement conference at this
2
time. However, the parties may file a joint stipulation seeking a settlement conference
3
at any time before trial. The stipulation should set forth proposed dates for a
4
settlement conference and indicate whether the parties would waive disqualification of
5
the undersigned to sit as settlement judge.
6
5. The parties are to brief the court regarding the following matters, and any others that
they believe will be helpful to conducting trial in this matter:3
7
a. What are the parties’ views on trial bifurcation, with the jury initially
8
considering the issue of defendants’ liability on plaintiff’s procedural due
9
10
process and retaliation claims, and if liability is found, only then considering
11
the issue of damages?4
12
b. What confidential material currently filed under seal with the court does
13
plaintiff seek to introduce at trial, for what purpose, with what proposed
14
redactions, if any, and what special procedures, if any? If plaintiff is permitted
15
to introduce some or all of this material at trial, what documents, other
16
evidence, or limiting instructions would defendants seek to introduce in
17
response, and why? How would trial bifurcation change the parties’ views on
18
this subject, if at all?
c. Should the jury be instructed regarding the court’s previous finding that
19
20
plaintiff’s validation as a gang associate satisfied the “some evidence”
21
standard, and if so, why? How would trial bifurcation change the parties’ view
22
on this subject, if at all?
23
d. If the jury finds for the plaintiff on his procedural due process claim, what are
24
25
26
27
28
appropriate remedies: a new validation hearing, nominal damages,
3
With regard to all of the issues to be addressed by the parties, the parties are strongly
encouraged to address possible alternatives in the event the court does not accept a party’s
preferred alternative or approach concerning any topic.
4
The court is of the view that if plaintiff seeks only nominal damages and an order releasing him
from the SHU, then bifurcation would be unnecessary.
3
1
2
compensatory damages, and/or some form of injunctive relief?
e. If the jury finds for the plaintiff on his retaliation claim, what are appropriate
3
remedies: a new validation hearing, nominal damages, compensatory
4
damages, and/or some form of injunctive relief?
5
f. If the jury finds for the plaintiff on either his procedural due process claim or
6
his retaliation claim, can the jury award compensatory damages for the time
7
plaintiff has spent in the SHU, and if so, on what basis?
8
Plaintiff is directed to file his initial brief no later than sixty days after docketing of
9
this order. Defendants are directed to file their opposition no later than forty-five days
10
thereafter. Plaintiff may file a reply no later than fourteen days after the filing of
11
defendants’ opposition. The parties are encouraged not only to cite legal authority
12
(including procedures used in other courts that have tried similar cases) in support of
13
their respective positions, but also set forth their views on how particular procedures
14
would facilitate a fair and efficient trial. The court also requires that the parties meet
15
and confer at least once either prior to or soon after plaintiff’s filing his initial brief in
16
an attempt to identify points of agreement, and to file a stipulation regarding any
17
matters that are agreed upon.
18
Once the parties have submitted their briefs and any stipulations, the court will set a
19
date for a hearing and further pretrial conference.
20
Dated: January 22, 2015
21
22
23
/ rios0790.status.order
24
25
26
27
28
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?