Mitchell v. Schwartzenegger et al
Filing
251
ORDER signed by District Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/25/2016 DENYING 240 Motion for New Trial; DENYING 241 Request for Relief from Judgment; DENYING 244 Motion to Appoint Counsel; DENYING 249 Rule 60 Motion for New Trial and/or Relief from Judgment. (Michel, G.)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
_____________________________________
JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL,
8
Plaintiff,
9
10
vs.
D. ROSARIO et al.
11
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:09-cv-03012-RCJ
ORDER
12
This is a prisoner civil rights case. A jury has returned a verdict for the defense. Pending
13
14
before the Court are four post-trial motions.
15
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
16
On October 28, 2009, Plaintiff John Edward Mitchell, a prisoner in the custody of the
17
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) currently incarcerated at
18
California State Prison (“CSP”) Corcoran, sued thirteen Defendants in this Court based on events
19
that occurred while he was incarcerated at CSP Solano. Plaintiff alleged substantially as follows.
20
On August 5, 2008, Plaintiff refused to be placed into a cell with a new, unfamiliar cell mate,
21
asking to be put into administrative segregation instead. Eventually, guards interpreted his
22
requests as noncompliance and tackled him to the ground before taking him to the infirmary and
23
then to administrative segregation. When Plaintiff indicated he intended to file a complaint for
24
1 of 4
1
excessive force, he was threatened with 90 days of administrative segregation. Defendants
2
carried out their threat when Plaintiff filed his grievance, keeping him in administrative
3
segregation until he was transferred to California Men’s Colony on April 28, 2009.
4
The Complaint listed four nominal constitutional claims and two nominal state law
5
claims. Plaintiff filed two supplemental complaints and separate motions for leave to file an
6
amended supplemental complaint and an amended complaint. The magistrate judge instructed
7
Plaintiff to consolidate his claims into a single amended complaint and gave him general
8
guidance as to pleading. Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on March 4,
9
2010. The FAC lists seven nominal claims: (1) excessive force in violation of the Eighth
10
Amendment; (2)–(4), (7) denial of the right to petition the government for redress of grievances
11
and retaliation in violation of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; and (5)–(6)
12
violation of the California State Tort Act (“CSTA”). Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC.
13
The district judge adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the FAC, with
14
leave to amend in part, denying leave to amend: (1) as against Defendants Durfey,
15
Schwarzenegger, and Cate for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) as to the fifth claim
16
for untimeliness; (3) as to claims for verbal harassment by Defendants Singh, Cappel, McGuire,
17
and Fowler; (4) as to the due process components of claims three and seven against Defendants
18
Singh, Cappel, Bickham, and Scavetta; (5) as to claim seven as against Defendants Bickham and
19
Scavetta; (6) as to the sixth claim for failure to state a claim; (7) and as to the Eighth Amendment
20
component of the fourth claim as against Defendants Haviland and Singh.
21
On February 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), listing
22
three claims: (1) excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment (against Defendants
23
Rosario, Easterling, and Durfey); (2) denial of the right to petition the government for redress of
24
2 of 4
1
grievances and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment (against Defendants Rosario and
2
Garcia); and (3) a similar claim (against Defendants Haviland, Singh, Cappel, Bickham, and
3
McGuire). Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC. The district judge adopted the magistrate
4
judge’s recommendation to dismiss the excessive force claim as against Easterling without
5
prejudice; to dismiss the retaliation claims as against Bickham, Cappel, Singh, and Haviland with
6
prejudice; and to permit the retaliation claims to proceed as against McGuire. The district judge
7
ordered Rosario to answer the excessive force claim and ordered Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire
8
to answer the respective First Amendment retaliation claims against them. Defendants jointly
9
answered. A settlement conference was unsuccessful. Defendants moved for summary
10
judgment. The district judge adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant summary
11
judgment as to the retaliation claim against Garcia but otherwise to deny the motion.
The Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Rosario and the separate First
12
13
Amendment retaliation claims against Rosario and McGuire were tried to a jury. The jury
14
returned a verdict for Defendants. Plaintiff has filed four post-trial motions.
15
II.
16
DISCUSSION
First and second, Plaintiff asks the Court to order a new trial under Rule 59 or for relief
17
from judgment under Rule 60(b) based on surprise at trial. He argues that although he had
18
requested production of “any and all incident packages,” and although Defendants responded
19
that they had disclosed all non-confidential documents in response, pages 1–10 of Exhibit B
20
produced by Defendants (a “use of force critique”) was allegedly an altered version of the
21
document. Plaintiff also argues that the Court did not permit the entire document to be entered
22
into evidence and did not permit Plaintiff to examine or cross-examine Defendants Rosario or
23
Easterling about the document. As Defendants note in response, the use of force critique was not
24
3 of 4
1
even introduced at trial, and Plaintiff did not attempt to call any document custodian to challenge
2
the authenticity of the document Defendants provided him before trial. Plaintiff also objects to
3
Exhibit J, claiming it was not produced during discovery, but Defendants argue that Plaintiff
4
never requested its disclosure, that it was in fact disclosed with Defendants’ trial exhibits, and
5
that Plaintiff did not object at trial, in any case. Next, the Court again rejects Plaintiff’s
6
argument that the Court’s ruling and instruction to the jury that Heck v. Humphrey precluded the
7
issue of the propriety of the use of some force, and that only the alleged excessiveness of the
8
force used could be litigated in the present case, was in error. Next, the Court will not revisit
9
previous rulings by the Magistrate Judge that there was no evidence of spoliation of alleged
10
videotape evidence or even any evidence of the existence of any videotape of the incident.
11
Third Plaintiff asks the Deputy Attorney General to stipulate to make certain evidence
12
part of the record. The request requires no judicial action, and the Court therefore denies it. The
13
Deputy Attorney General may stipulate as Plaintiff requests if she wishes. The Court expresses
14
no opinion at this time as to whether it would grant the relief requested if so stipulated. Fourth,
15
Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel. The Court denies that motion.
CONCLUSION
16
17
18
19
20
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions (ECF Nos. 240, 241, 242, 244) are
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 28th day ofof January, 2016.
DATED this 25th day December, 2015.
21
22
23
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
24
4 of 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?