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