Hamilton v. Thomson et al

Filing 107

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING MOTION TO REOPEN, DENYING PLAINTIFFS 101 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

BERNARD HAMILTON,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff,

5
6

No. C 06-6268 CW (PR)

v.

7

OFFICER ADAMIK, et al.,

8

Defendants.
_____________________________/

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

13

No. C 09-0648

BERNARD HAMILTON,

11
12

(Docket no. 211)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REOPEN, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO
FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

Plaintiff,
v.
G. THOMPSON, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15

/

(Docket no. 101)

16
17
BACKGROUND
18
The cases discussed in this Order have a lengthy procedural
19
20

history, which the Court sets forth below.
In 2006, Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at (SQSP),

21

filed Hamilton v. Adamik, et al., C 06-06268 CW (PR) (Adamik),

22

alleging prison officials at SQSP had acted with deliberate

23

indifference to his serious medical needs and retaliated against

24

him because of his attempts to obtain medical care.

25

On June 11, 2008, after meeting with Magistrate Judge Nandor

26

Vadas, the parties entered into a settlement agreement comprised

27

of the following terms: “(1) Plaintiff shall be provided a medical

28

chrono allowing him an extra pillow; (2) Plaintiff shall be

1

allowed to possess and use his pulse oximeter as long as it is

2

medically necessary; (3) Plaintiff shall be examined by SQSP

3

doctors for determination on the appropriate treatment of

4

Plaintiff’s current medical condition; (4) in exchange

5

for the foregoing, Plaintiff shall dismiss the Complaint with

6

prejudice; (5) Judge Vadas shall retain jurisdiction to monitor

7

this case until the dismissal is filed.”

8

1-2.

9

and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Adamik, Docket no. 65 at

On July 7, 2008, the Court approved the settlement agreement
Id., Docket 66.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Subsequently, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order of

11

dismissal based on Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with the

12

terms of the settlement agreement.

Id., Docket nos. 69-72.

13

While the motion for reconsideration was pending, Plaintiff

14

filed Hamilton v. Thomson, et al., C 09-00648 CW (PR) (Thomson),

15

raising claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical

16

needs, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, breach

17

of contract and retaliation.

18

summary judgment and various other motions.

19

withdrew all claims other than the breach of contract and

20

retaliation claims.

21

The parties filed cross-motions for
Plaintiff voluntarily

Thomson, Docket no. 99.

On March 26, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for

22

reconsideration in the Adamik case.

23

reopen the case; it was referred to Magistrate Judge Vadas for

24

further proceedings to determine whether the settlement agreement

25

had been breached and/or whether further Court action was required

26

to ensure compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

27

Adamik, Docket no. 73.

28

The Clerk was directed to

On June 27, 2012, Defendants in Adamik filed their motion to
2

1

enforce the settlement and to dismiss the case.

2

no. 182.

3

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation Re: Motion to Enforce

4

Settlement and Motion to Dismiss Litigation.

5

210.

6

Vadas’s assessment that “although there is no doubt that Plaintiff

7

entered into the 2008 settlement to end the ice dispute and obtain

8

a laptop computer, the settlement agreement does not include the

9

provision of these items as terms of the settlement.”

Adamik, Docket

On November 6, 2012, the Court issued its Order Adopting

Adamik, Docket no.

In particular, the Court concurred with Magistrate Judge

Id. at

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

1:18-21.

11

including Magistrate Judge Vadas’s “regretful[]” conclusion that

12

the Court lacks the power to order Defendants to provide a laptop

13

and ice to Plaintiff under the terms of the Notice of Settlement.

14

Id. at 1:24-26.

15

Court that if he is of the belief that he has a serious medical

16

need that requires he be provided with a laptop and ice, he is not

17

precluded from filing a new and separate lawsuit raising such

18

claims.

19

The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full,

In that same order, Plaintiff was advised by the

Id. at 2:2-5.

Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order

20

dismissing the Adamik case, and to reopen and be granted summary

21

judgment in the Thomson case.

22

motions and Plaintiff has filed replies.

23

Defendants have opposed Plaintiff’s

For the reasons discussed below, the motion for

24

reconsideration of the order of dismissal in Adamik is DENIED, the

25

motion to reopen Thomson is GRANTED, the motion for summary

26

judgment in that case is DENIED as premature and Plaintiff is

27

GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint.

28

//
3

1

I.

2

Motion for Reconsideration in Adamik
A motion which challenges the Court’s final judgment may be

brought under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules

4

of Civil Procedure.

5

1441-42 (9th Cir. 1991).

6

within ten days of entry of judgment, will be treated as a motion

7

to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e).

8

Nutri-Cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396-97 (9th Cir. 1992).

9

motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) should not be granted,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is

11

presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error,

12

or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”

13

McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1254 (9th Cir. 1999)

14

(quotation and citation omitted).

15

See Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437,
Plaintiff’s motion, which was filed

See United States v.
“A

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and his declaration

16

and other evidence in support thereof.

17

presented the Court with newly discovered evidence, shown that the

18

Court committed clear error, or shown that there has been an

19

intervening change in the controlling law that would change the

20

Court’s ruling.

21

Rule 59(e) is DENIED.

22

II.

23

Plaintiff has not

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration under

Motion to Reopen and for Summary Judgment in Thomson
Following entry of the order of dismissal in Adamik,

24

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment in Thomson on his breach of

25

contract and retaliation claims.

26

on the ground that the case is closed and the issues raised

27

therein already have been adjudicated.

28

moving to reopen the case, arguing that his breach of contract and

Defendants object to the motion

4

Plaintiff has responded by

1

retaliation claims are different than the claims addressed in

2

Adamik.

3

solely the terms of the settlement agreement and resulted in a

4

finding that the settlement agreement did not encompass

5

Plaintiff’s demands for ice and a laptop.

6

argues, his claims in Thomson concern Dr. E. Tootell’s alleged

7

unwarranted revocation of the medical chrono she previously

8

authorized ordering that he receive ice and a laptop, and the

9

alleged retaliatory denial of his medical grievance concerning

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Specifically, Plaintiff maintains that Adamik addressed

By contrast, Plaintiff

that matter by N. Grannis at the Director’s level of review.
The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument sufficiently persuasive

12

to warrant reopening the Thomson case to allow him to reassert his

13

claims against Dr. Tootell and N. Grannis.

14

must file and serve on Defendants’ counsel an amended complaint

15

that sets forth only the claims against Defendants Tootell and

16

Grannis.

17

Plaintiff, however,

Based on the above, the Court rules as follows: Plaintiff’s

18

motion to reopen the Thomson case is GRANTED, his motion for

19

summary judgment is DENIED as premature and he is GRANTED leave to

20

file an amended complaint that sets forth the claims he seeks to

21

pursue against Dr. Tootell and N. Grannis in this case.

22

medical care claims that Plaintiff might seek to pursue concerning

23

events that occurred after the date the Thomson case was filed

24

must be brought in a new and separate action.

25

Any

CONCLUSION

26

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

27

1.

28

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration in Hamilton v.

Adamik, et al., C 06-6268 CW (PR) is DENIED.
5

Docket no. 211.

1

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to reopen Hamilton v. Thomson, et

2

al., C 09-0648 CW (PR) is GRANTED.

3

directed to REOPEN this case.

4
5

3.

The Clerk of the Court is

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in C 09-0648 is

DENIED as premature.

Docket no. 101.

6

4.

Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint

7

in C 09-0648.

Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint and

8

serve a copy thereof on counsel for Defendants in that case no

9

later than thirty days from the date of this Order.

His failure

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

to do so will result in the dismissal of the action without

11

prejudice.

12

5.

Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with

13

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

14

schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action:

15

a.

The following briefing

No later than thirty days from the date their

16

answer is due, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment

17

or other dispositive motion.

18

summary judgment, it shall be supported by adequate factual

19

documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of

20

Civil Procedure 56.

21

case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so inform

22

the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.

23

All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on

24
25
26

If Defendants file a motion for

If Defendants are of the opinion that this

Plaintiff.
At the time of filing the motion for summary judgment or
other dispositive motion, Defendants shall comply with the Ninth
Circuit’s decisions in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.

27
2012), and Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2012), and
28
6

1

provide Plaintiff with notice of what is required of him to oppose

2

a summary judgment motion or a motion to dismiss for failure to

3

exhaust administrative remedies.
b.

4

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary

5

judgment or other dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court

6

and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight days after the

7

date on which Defendants’ motion is filed.

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Before filing his opposition, Plaintiff is advised to read
the notice that will be provided to him by Defendants when the
motion is filed, and Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party
opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence showing
triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his

13
claim).

Plaintiff is cautioned that because he bears the burden

14
of proving his allegations in this case, he must be prepared to
15
produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files his
16
17

opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion.

Such evidence

may include sworn declarations from himself and other witnesses to

18

the incident, and copies of documents authenticated by sworn

19

declaration.

20

simply by repeating the allegations of his complaint.

21
22

c.

Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary judgment

Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than

fourteen days after the date Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.

23

d.

24

the reply brief is due.

25

unless the Court so orders at a later date.

26

6.

The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date
No hearing will be held on the motion

Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with

27

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

28

to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendants to depose
7

Leave of the Court pursuant

1
2

Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison.
7.

All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be

3

served on Defendants’ counsel, by mailing a true copy of the

4

document to Defendants’ counsel.

5

8.

It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case.

6

He must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must

7

comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion.

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

9.

Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable

extensions will be granted.

Any motion for an extension of time

must be filed no later than fourteen days prior to the deadline
sought to be extended.
This Order terminates Docket no. 211 in C 06-6268 and Docket

12
no. 101 in C 09-0648
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated:
15

6/4/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8