Blight v. Manteca et al

Filing 77

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 5/23/2017 DENYING 71 Defendants' Request for Reconsideration. (Kirksey Smith, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 JOANNE BLIGHT, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 18 CITY OF MANTECA; Manteca Police Department Detectives ARMANDO GARCIA and IAN OSBORN; and Manteca Police Department Sergeants PAUL CARMONA and CHRIS MRAZ; Defendants. 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER RE: RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING v. 19 22 CIV. NO. 2:15-2513 WBS AC Plaintiff Joanne Blight brought this action against defendants the City of Manteca, Manteca Police Department Detectives Armando Garcia and Ian Osborn, and Manteca Police Department Sergeants Paul Carmona and Chris Mraz, alleging that defendants violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they engaged in a “SWAT style” search of her home. No. 1).) (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 32 (Docket Defendants claim that the search was authorized by a 28 1 1 warrant issued by a state court pursuant to an affidavit they had 2 submitted to the state court containing information provided by a 3 confidential informant (“CI”). 4 misrepresented or omitted material aspects of what the CI told 5 them in their affidavit to the state court. Plaintiff claims that defendants 6 On February 10, 2017, the magistrate judge in this case 7 issued an order (“February 10 order”) granting plaintiff’s motion 8 to compel the deposition of the CI on grounds that the CI’s 9 deposition is necessary to a “fair presentation” of plaintiff’s 10 claim that defendants misrepresented or omitted material aspects 11 of what the CI told them in their affidavit to the state court. 12 (Feb. 10, 2017 Order at 3, 6 (Docket No. 55).) 13 submitted a request for reconsideration of the February 10 order 14 on February 24. 15 contained several redactions which the court did not authorize in 16 violation of Local Rule 140(b). 17 “without prejudice to defendants’ right to re-file [the] request 18 in a form consistent with” Local Rule 140(b). 19 Order (Docket No. 70).) 20 amended request for reconsideration of the February 10 order, 21 which contains no redactions. Defendants (Defs.’ Req. (Docket No. 62).) That request The court denied that request (Apr. 5, 2017 Before the court now is defendants’ (Defs.’ Am. Req. (Docket No. 71).) 22 The court reviews magistrate rulings on non-dispositive 23 motions under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard 24 set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 25 72(a); E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f); see also Computer Econs., Inc. v. 26 Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999). 27 That standard is highly deferential, see United States v. Abonce– 28 Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 968–69 (9th Cir. 2001), and does not allow 2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 the court to “simply substitute its judgment” for that of the 2 magistrate judge, Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 3 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 Defendants argue that the February 10 order was 5 “contrary to the law” because United States v. Rowland, 464 F.3d 6 899 (9th Cir. 2006) compels a different result than the result 7 reached in the February 10 order. 8 Rowland, according to defendants, stands for the proposition that 9 mere speculation of police deception with respect to a warrant- (Defs.’ Am. Req. at 6-7.) 10 procuring affidavit is “not sufficient grounds” to compel the 11 police to reveal confidential sources they relied upon in making 12 representations in the affidavit.1 13 according to defendants, merely speculates that defendants 14 misrepresented or omitted material aspects of what the CI told 15 them in their affidavit to the state court. 16 offering any facts that suggest what defendants stated in their 17 affidavit to the state court was deceptive, defendants contend, 18 plaintiff cannot compel the deposition of the CI under Rowland. 19 (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff, (Id. at 7.) Without Defendants raised this argument in their brief opposing 20 plaintiff’s motion to compel, and the magistrate judge addressed 21 this argument in the February 10 order. In the February 10 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Rowland was a case in which the Ninth Circuit held that a defendant charged with a crime on the basis of information provided by a CI may not compel “discovery of information related to the [CI’s] . . . credibility and background” where the defendant “has not articulated any specific reasons to disbelieve the [CI’s] testimony.” Rowland, 464 F.3d at 909. The court will assume, without deciding, that Rowland stands for the proposition defendants cite it for because, as this Order explains, defendants’ amended request for reconsideration fails even under that assumption. 3 1 order, the magistrate judge stated that “plaintiff is not simply 2 speculating” that defendants misrepresented or omitted material 3 aspects of what the CI told them in their affidavit to the state 4 court. 5 contained in [defendant’s] affidavit . . . compared with the 6 actual results of the search,” the magistrate judge found, “could 7 lead a reasonable person to conclude that further inquiry into 8 the possibility of judicial deception [by defendants] is 9 warranted.”2 (Feb. 10, 2017 Order at 3.) “Specific information (Id.) 10 Nothing in defendants’ amended request for 11 reconsideration shows that the magistrate judge’s finding that 12 plaintiff is not merely speculating about judicial deception was 13 clearly erroneous. 14 disagree with the magistrate judge’s finding. 15 Req. at 7 (arguing that discrepancies between defendants’ 16 affidavit and the results of defendants’ search of plaintiff’s 17 home “speak[] more to the [CI] simply being mistaken, rather than 18 [defendants] engaging in judicial deception”).) 19 disagreement on defendants’ part with the magistrate judge’s 20 finding is not sufficient to show that the finding was clearly It appears, instead, that defendants simply (See Defs.’ Am. Mere 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Defendants’ affidavit stated that a certain drug dealer lived in plaintiff’s home. When defendants searched plaintiff’s home, that person was not found there. The magistrate judge construed this discrepancy, along with the fact that the CI “was familiar with” plaintiff’s home, to indicate that plaintiff’s judicial deception claim is not mere speculation. (See Feb. 8, 2017 Tr. at 6 (Docket No. 64).) The magistrate judge provided this analysis at the hearing for plaintiff’s motion to compel, but omitted the analysis from the February 10 order because the contents of defendants’ affidavit and the CI’s knowledge are subject to a stipulated protective order. This court omits the analysis from this Order for the same reason. 4 1 erroneous. 2 order was “contrary to” Rowland. 3 Thus, defendants have not shown that the February 10 Because defendants have not shown that the February 10 4 order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the court will 5 deny their amended request for reconsideration. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ amended 7 request for reconsideration (Docket No. 71) of the magistrate 8 judge’s February 10, 2017 order be, and the same hereby is, 9 DENIED. 10 Dated: May 23, 2017 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?