Owens v. Defazio et al
Filing
233
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/28/2021 ADOPTING 224 The Findings and Recommendations in full; Defendants' 216 Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to all claims against defendant Okoroike and Eldridge and Plaintiff's cla im alleging that defendant Schulz denied him due process by finding him guilty of a rules violation report based on insufficient evidence; Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion is DENIED in all other respects; Plaintiff's Motion for parti al Summary Judgment as to defendant Schultz 181 is GRANTED as to the claim that defendant Schultz violated Plaintiff's right to due process when he denied Plaintiff's request to present documentary evidence at the disciplinary hearing ; Plaintiff's Motion for partial Summary Judgment as to defendants Schultz and Eldridge 181 is DENIED in all other respects; and DENYING 182 , 193 , 206 Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's 228 Motion for an extension of time to file his objections is GRANTED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THEON OWENS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-2750 JAM KJN P
v.
ORDER
JOESEPH DEFAZIO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
19
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 3, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
20
21
were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
22
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff and defendants
23
have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
24
Pursuant to the mailbox rule, plaintiff filed his objections on March 23, 2021. (ECF No.
25
On March 31, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion which the court construes as a motion for extension
26
of time to file his objections. (ECF No. 228.) Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion for an
27
extension of time is granted and plaintiff’s objections are deemed timely filed.
28
////
1
1
Defendants object only to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that plaintiff’s summary
2
judgment motion be granted as to the claim that defendant Schultz violated plaintiff’s right to due
3
process by denying plaintiff’s request to present documentary evidence at the disciplinary
4
hearing. Before addressing defendants’ objections, the undersigned makes the following
5
observations.
6
Although plaintiff clearly moved for summary judgment as to the at-issue claim (ECF No.
7
181 at 24-25), defendants failed to address this claim in their points and authorities filed in
8
support of their opposition. (ECF No. 217 at 5-7.) Defendants failed to recognize plaintiff’s
9
constitutional right to present documentary evidence at his prison disciplinary hearing (id.),
10
although this claim was clearly discussed in the October 3, 2017 findings and recommendations
11
addressing defendants’ motion to dismiss.1 (ECF No. 49 at 25.)
12
In their response to plaintiff’s statement of undisputed facts, defendants addressed
13
plaintiff’s undisputed facts nos. 8-9, which related to the at-issue claim. (ECF No. 224 at 48-50.)
14
The magistrate judge overruled defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s undisputed facts nos. 8-9.
15
(Id.) The magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s unopposed evidence demonstrated that defendant
16
Schultz violated plaintiff’s due process right to present documentary evidence at his disciplinary
17
hearing. (Id. at 50.)
18
Turning to defendants’ objections, defendants argue that plaintiff did not attach the
19
exhibits he relied upon to his summary judgment motion, making it impossible for defendants to
20
frame an appropriate response or evaluate plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 225 at 2.)
21
Plaintiff filed four separate motions for partial summary judgment, each containing a
22
statement of undisputed facts. (ECF Nos. 181, 182, 193, 203.) Plaintiff separately filed a well-
23
organized package of exhibits. (ECF No. 200.) Plaintiff’s statements of undisputed facts cited to
24
1
25
26
27
28
In the March 3, 2021 findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge observed that in
defendants’ summary judgment motion (and in their opposition to plaintiff’s summary judgment
motion), defendants’ description of the due process rights to which inmates are entitled in prison
disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 439, 566 (1974) did not
include the right to present documentary evidence. (ECF No. 224 at 34.) In Wolff, the Supreme
Court held that inmates have a due process right to present documentary evidence at prison
disciplinary proceedings. 418 U.S. at 566.
2
1
these exhibits. Defendants were in possession of all of these documents when they prepared their
2
opposition. In their response to plaintiff’s statements of undisputed facts, defendants cited the
3
exhibits referenced by plaintiff in his statements of undisputed facts. (ECF No. 217-1.) Based on
4
these circumstances, the undersigned is not persuaded by defendants’ objection that plaintiff’s
5
separate filing of his exhibit package made it impossible for them to frame an appropriate
6
response to his summary judgment motion.
7
In addition, defendants’ failure to acknowledge plaintiff’s constitutional right to present
8
documentary evidence in their opposition (and in their own summary judgment motion)
9
undermines their objection that the separate filing of plaintiff’s exhibits made it impossible for
10
them to respond to this claim.
11
In the objections, defendants also argue that the magistrate judge erred in finding that
12
plaintiff met his initial summary judgment burden. Defendants argue that plaintiff offered no
13
evidence in his partial summary judgment motion that defendant Schultz violated his right to due
14
process by denying his request to present documentary evidence at his disciplinary hearing. The
15
undersigned rejects this argument because the magistrate judge correctly found that plaintiff’s
16
undisputed evidence, discussed in the findings and recommendations, demonstrated that
17
defendant Schultz denied plaintiff’s request to present documentary evidence in violation of
18
plaintiff’s right to due process. (ECF No. 224 at 48-50.)
19
Defendants’ objections contain new arguments regarding why plaintiff’s motion for
20
summary judgment as to the at-issue claim should be denied. In essence, in their objections,
21
defendants now seek to oppose plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to this claim.
22
It is within this court’s discretion whether to accept new arguments raised in objections.
23
Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting the Fourth Circuit’s requirement that
24
a district court must consider new arguments raised in objections to a magistrate judge’s findings
25
and recommendation). For the following reasons, the undersigned declines to exercise his
26
discretion to consider the new arguments raised in defendants’ objections.
27
28
As discussed above, the October 3, 2017 findings and recommendations addressing
defendants’ motion to dismiss made clear that this action proceeded on plaintiff’s claim that
3
1
defendant Schultz allegedly violated his right to due process by denying his request to present
2
documentary evidence at his disciplinary hearing. (ECF No. 49 at 24-25.) Plaintiff’s partial
3
summary judgment motion also clearly raised this claim. (ECF No. 181 at 24-25.) Based on
4
these circumstances, defendants have not shown good cause to consider the new arguments raised
5
in their objections.
6
In their objections, defendants argue that in Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004),
7
the Ninth Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion by failing to consider arguments
8
raised for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge’s findings. In Jones, the Ninth Circuit
9
found that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider new evidence presented in
10
objections filed by a “pro se plaintiff, ignorant of the law…” 393 F.3d at 935. In the instant case,
11
defendants are not pro se plaintiff’s, ignorant of the law. Defendants are represented by counsel.
12
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
13
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
14
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
15
analysis.
16
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
17
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 3, 2021, are adopted in full;
18
2. Defendants’ summary judgment motion (ECF No. 216) is granted as to all claims
19
against defendant Okoroike and Eldridge and plaintiff’s claim alleging that defendant Schulz
20
denied him due process by finding him guilty of a rules violation report based on insufficient
21
evidence; defendants’ summary judgment motion is denied in all other respects;
22
3. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to defendant Schultz (ECF No.
23
181) is granted as to the claim that defendant Schultz violated plaintiff’s right to due process
24
when he denied plaintiff’s request to present documentary evidence at the disciplinary hearing;
25
plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to defendants Schultz and Eldridge (ECF No.
26
181) is denied in all other respects; and
27
////
28
////
4
1
4. Plaintiff’s motions for partial summary judgment (ECF Nos. 182, 193, 203) are denied;
2
5. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file his objections (ECF No. 228) is
3
granted.
4
5
6
7
DATED: June 28, 2021
/s/ John A. Mendez
THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
8
9
10
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?