Hunt v. Fields

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/24/11 ORDERING that Plaintiffs 30 motion to file a second amended complaint is DENIED; Plaintiffs 33 motion for sanctions is DENIED; Defendants 32 Request to Respond to the Courts Order Issued 7/11/11 Beyond Time is GRANTED; and Defendants 39 motion to strike plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as untimely is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court shall address the remaining, pending motion for summary judgment ( 35 , 36 , 37 ) after completion of briefing on the motion and any cross-motion for summary judgment by defendant.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MICHAEL A. HUNT,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-09-3525 KJM GGH P

Defendant.

ORDER

vs.
D. FIELDS,

14
15

/

16

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are the following motions: (1) plaintiff’s

18

motion to file a second amended complaint (Doc. No. 30); (2) plaintiff’s motion for sanctions

19

(Doc. No. 33); (3) defendant’s request to excuse her late compliance with the court’s July 11,

20

2011 order granting in part plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 32); and (4) defendant’s

21

motion to strike plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as untimely, or, in the alternative, for

22

an additional 30 days in which to file her own motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 39).

23
24
25
26

The undersigned will address each of these motions in turn.
Background
The gravamen of this action, which is currently proceeding on the original
complaint filed on December 11, 2009 (see Doc. Nos. 15, 17), is that defendant Fields violated
1

1

plaintiff’s First Amendment right to file inmate grievances and pursue civil rights litigation. The

2

complaint reads that plaintiff was transferred to CSP-Sacramento’s Facility C in August 2007 as

3

a non-gang-affiliated prisoner, and that in February or March 2008, Fields retaliated against

4

plaintiff for filing past grievances by adding him to C-Facility’s list as a Blood gang associate.

5

(Doc. No. 1, hereinafter “Complaint,” at ¶¶ 7, 10, 24). As a result, plaintiff was included in

6

lockdowns of Blood and Crip gang associates in April and June 2008, and continues to suffer

7

restrictions and hardships as a result of being identified as a gang associate among the prison

8

population. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 13, 17). Plaintiff further alleges that, after defendant Fields was served

9

with plaintiff’s complaint and summons in another legal action in August 2008, Fields retaliated

10

by having plaintiff fired from his job assignment. (Id. at ¶ 16). Plaintiff alleges that, due to

11

Fields’ retaliatory actions, he remains vulnerable to future lockdowns and associated injuries as a

12

purported Blood associate. (Id. at ¶¶ 28, 29).

13

On June 7, 2010, this court screened plaintiff’s original complaint and amended

14

complaint, and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to file a second amended complaint

15

within 28 days. (Doc. No. 15). On September 1, 2010, after plaintiff failed to file a second

16

amended complaint, the court dismissed defendant Walker with prejudice and directed that the

17

case proceed on the original complaint. (Doc. No. 18).

18

On July 26, 2010, this court entered a “Discovery and Scheduling Order,” setting

19

various deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions in this action. (Doc. No. 16) Discovery

20

was to be completed by October 29, 2010, and dispositive motions were to be filed by January

21

28, 2011. By order dated December 1, 2010, this court extended the discovery deadline,

22

pursuant to plaintiff’s unopposed motion, for an additional forty-five days, or through Tuesday,

23

January 18, 2011.1 (Doc. No. 23) Prior to the close of the extended discovery deadline, plaintiff

24
25
26

1

Because the actual deadline fell on a weekend, the deadline is moved to the next court
business day. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(a)(1)(C). In this case, the next weekday, Monday,
January 17, 2011 was a court holiday, so the deadline is moved to Tuesday, January 18, 2011.
2

1

filed a motion to compel defendant’s responses to discovery. (Doc. No, 24)

2

By order filed July 11, 2011, this court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to

3

compel, in which plaintiff had sought, among other things, a response to his request for an

4

“Inmate Interview Form” completed when defendant allegedly interviewed plaintiff in February

5

and March 2008. (Doc. No. 29) Defendant had initially responded that no such document could

6

be located. See Doc. No. 27, p. 3. In response, this court noted:

7
8
9
10
11
12

[D]efendant is a CDCR employee who... may be presumed to have a legal right to
obtain the requested record upon demand. Moreover, the requested document is
highly relevant to plaintiff’s allegations .... Any interview that defendant
conducted with plaintiff during this two-month period is likely to shed light on her
basis for classifying him as a Blood gang associate (if indeed she did so), and may
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence of retaliatory motive or lack thereof.
Defendant does not maintain that the alleged interview never took place, nor that
this particular document does not exist. If it does exist, it is not clear to the court
why defendant would be unable to locate a document that presumably was filed as
a matter of course in the prison’s recordkeeping system. The court will therefore
grant plaintiff’s motion as to RFP No. 7 and instruct defendant to redouble her
efforts to locate the document.

13
14
15

Doc. No. 29 at pp. 6-7. The supplemental responses were due on August 4, 2011.
In her request to respond to the court’s order beyond time, defendant’ counsel

16

declares that she went to the California State Prison-Sacramento on August 2, 2011 “to review

17

Plaintiff’s central file, and to search for a copy of the interview notes that were completed during

18

the lockdown in question.” Doc. No. 32, p. 2, ¶ 5.

19
20
21
22
23
24

In her supplemental response, defendant again reports that she is unable to locate
the requested document:
Defendant has been unable to locate this document. Plaintiff, along with all other
inmates in the unit, were [sic] interviewed following the incident that took place
on February 7, 2008. Those documents were collected and maintained by the
Facility Captain. A diligent search was conducted and those documents could not
be located.
Doc. No. 38, Ex. B. The copy of the supplemental responses provided to the court is signed by

25
26

See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(a)(6)(A).
3

1
2
3

counsel for the defendant.
A.

Plaintiff’s Motion to File A Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 30)
On June 7, 2010, this court dismissed plaintiff’s first amended complaint with

4

leave to amend the complaint within 28 days. On July 21, 2011, more than a year after

5

expiration of the twenty-eight day period, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second

6

amended complaint. (Doc. No. 30.)

7

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her

8

pleading “once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) ... 21 days after

9

service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f),

10

whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading

11

only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give

12

leave where justice so requires.” Id.; see also E.D. Local Rule 220. Although the allegations of a

13

pro se complaint are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,”

14

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), plaintiff is required to comply with the

15

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California.

16

Having reviewed the amended pleading, the court concludes that justice does not

17

require leave to amend in this instance, because the changes proposed by the plaintiff do not alter

18

the underlying gravamen of the suit. The proposed second amended complaint does not add any

19

additional defendants or legal causes of action. Instead, plaintiff “seeks to clarify and simplify

20

the factual allegations contained in the original complaint,” based in part upon what he has

21

learned in discovery. See Doc. No. 30, p. 4.

22

For example, plaintiff seeks to clarify that defendant is being sued in her official

23

capacity, as well as in her individual one. The original complaint does not specifically articulate

24

the capacity in which defendant is sued, a fact previously noted by this court in overruling

25

defendant’s custody and control discovery objections:

26

In this case, plaintiff did not specify in what capacity he sued the defendant.
4

1

However, he did ask for injunctive relief in the complaint, including relief which
exceeded a simple order vis-a-vis the named defendant to restrain individual
action .... Therefore, it can only be presumed that the defendant has been sued in
her official capacity on account that the relief requested, at least in part, could not
be obtained against a defendant in individual capacity status.

2
3
4
5
6
7

Doc. 29, p. 5.
Thus this action continues to proceed on the original complaint, as outlined in the
June 7, 2010 order.
B.

Defendant’s Request to Respond to the Court’s Order, Issued July 11,

8

2011, Beyond Time (Doc. No. 32) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions

9

(Doc. No. 33)

10

Plaintiff seeks sanctions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, for

11

defendant’s failure to comply timely with the court’s July 11, 2011 order granting in part and

12

denying in part plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Defendant has filed a request to excuse

13

her late compliance with the court’s order, explaining that, because of a mistake in counsel’s

14

office, the responses were not timely served.

15

Plaintiff’s Reply, dated September 7, 2011 (Doc. No. 38), reads that plaintiff has

16

now received supplemental responses to his request for admission, his request for production of

17

documents, and his interrogatory requests. Plaintiff was served with the documents on August

18

26, 2011 and August 29, 2011, a delay of twenty-one and twenty-five days from the original due

19

date of August 4, 2011. Nevertheless, plaintiff continues to seek sanctions (1) because the

20

responses were late; and (2) because defendant did not produce any documents in its

21

supplemental response to the plaintiff’s request for documents.

22

Defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion for sanctions does not address

23

plaintiff’s allegation that the supplemental response to the document request is insufficient in

24

light of the court’s prior order. See Doc. No. 34. However, defendant reports that her counsel

25

has examined the file, and is unable to locate the requested documents. In light of defendant’s

26

efforts to produce the requested document, and her counsel’s representation that the document is
5

1

not available, the court will not sanction defendant for her inability to comply with the court’s

2

prior order.

3

As to defendant’s untimeliness in responding to the July 11, 2011 order, the court

4

will not sanction defendant for the short delay occasioned by the errors in counsel’s office.

5

Plaintiff has now received the responses, and has not identified any specific harm related to the

6

delay. Accordingly, defendant’s request to excuse counsel’s late compliance with the court’s

7

July 11, 2011 order (Doc. No. 32) is granted, and plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 33) is

8

denied.

9

C.

10
11

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 39)

Defendant seeks to strike plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, alleging that it

12

is untimely filed pursuant to this court’s July 26, 2010 scheduling order. The court notes that

13

there has been at least one ordered modification of the schedule (Doc. No. 23), and that the

14

defendant has only recently served plaintiff with supplemental discovery responses. Because

15

defendant does not articulate any prejudice suffered by defendant as a result of the delay, the

16

court will deny the motion to strike.

17

Defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as untimely

18

is denied. Defendant’s request for 30 days to oppose plaintiff’s motion and to file a cross motion

19

for summary judgment is granted.

20

Any opposition and/or cross-motion for summary judgment by defendant shall be

21

filed within 30 days of the filing date of this order. Any additional briefing on the motion(s) for

22

summary judgment must be done in compliance with Local Rule 230(l).

23

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

24

(1)

25
26

Plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint (Doc. No. 30) is
denied;

(2)

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 33) is denied;
6

1

(3)

2

Defendant’s Request to Respond to the Court’s Order Issued July 11, 2011
Beyond Time (Doc. No. 32) is granted; and

3

(4)

Defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as

4

untimely (Doc. No. 39) is granted in part and denied in part.

5

The court shall address the remaining, pending motion for summary judgment (Doc. Nos.

6

35, 36, 37) after completion of briefing on the motion and any cross-motion for summary

7

judgment by defendant.

8

DATED: October 24, 2011

9

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11

GGH:rb
hunt3525.mts.wpd

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
7