Yocom v. Grounds et al

Filing 130

ORDER. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 6/14/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2012)

1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

MICHAEL ALAN YOCOM,

8

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S PENDING
MOTIONS RELATING TO THE COURT'S
MARCH 30, 2012 ORDER GRANTING THEIR
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

Plaintiff,

6
7

No. C 10-03609 SBA (PR)

v.
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.

9

/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
INTRODUCTION

11
12

Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF), filed the

13

instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Defendants violated his

14

constitutional rights. In an Order dated March 30, 2012, the Court granted Defendant Kelso's

15

motion for summary judgment, and granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff's

16

claims against served Defendants Wilcox, Siegel, Palmer, Cowan, and Benedetti as well as unserved

17

Defendants Siegel, Grounds, and Sisk. In addition, the Court denied Plaintiff's cross motion for

18

summary judgment.

19

On April 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal as well as a motion entitled, "Motion for

20

the Reconsideration of the Court's Final Judgement [sic] (03-30-2012) Pursuant to (Fed. R. App. P.

21

4(a)4)[,] Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgement [sic] (FRCP, Rule #59(e))[, and] Motion for Oral

22

Hearging(s) [sic]" (docket no. 121), which the Court will construe as a motion for reconsideration of

23

the Court's March 30, 2012 Order. On April 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a document entitled,

24

"Supplemental Brief to His Timely Filed Motion For Reconsideration of the Court's Final Judgement

25

[sic]" (docket no. 123). On May 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed another motion, entitled, "Notice of

26

Plaintiff's Motion to Alter and/or Amend the Judgement [sic], and Motion to Consolidate Federal

27

Habeas Corpus Proceedings with (1983) Civil Rights Action" (docket no. 127).1

28
1

Plaintiff currently has a federal habeas corpus action pending before the Honorable Edward
J. Davila, Case No. C 10-3806 EJD (PR).

1
2

DISCUSSION
Motions to reconsider a decision of the court are appropriately brought under Rule 59(e) or
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1422

4

(9th Cir. 1991). Pursuant to Rule 59(e), reconsideration may be appropriate where the movant

5

demonstrates that there is (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence not

6

previously available, or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.

7

McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 60(b) provides for

8

reconsideration only upon a showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,

9

(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

court's decision, (3) fraud by the adverse party, (4) a void judgment, (5) a satisfied or discharged

11

judgment, or (6) any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v.

12

ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the

13

grounds justifying relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the court's order or belief that

14

the court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief. Twentieth Century - Fox Film

15

Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981).

16

In its March 30, 2012 Order, the Court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact

17

as to whether Defendant Kelso acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs, and

18

granted Defendant Kelso's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's remaining claims fell into three

19

categories: (1) that Defendants Wilcox and Siegel were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious

20

medical needs by denying him Seroquel, Wellbutrin, and Lithium; (2) that Defendants Palmer,

21

Cowan, and Benedetti violated Plaintiff's due process rights in connection with three 2009

22

disciplinary hearings; and (3) that unserved Defendants Grounds and Sisk were liable as supervisors

23

for the claimed due process violations. Defendants Wilcox, Siegel, Palmer, Cowan, and Benedetti

24

filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings concerning the first and second of these categories of

25

claims. These Defendants asserted that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel bar

26

Plaintiff's claims against them.

27

Defendants Wilcox and Siegel argued that the claims against them were barred by the

28

doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel based on California state courts' denials of a petition
2

1

for a writ of habeas corpus in the Monterey County Superior Court case In re Michael Alan Yocom,

2

Case no. HC 6657, and in the subsequent state court appeals. In its March 30, 2012 Order, the Court

3

granted Defendants Wilcox's and Siegel's motion upon determining that: (1) Plaintiff was pursuing

4

the same deliberate indifference to serious medical needs cause of action in this case as he did in

5

state habeas case; and (2) because the state courts found no Eighth Amendment violation after

6

giving Plaintiff a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims, the claims against Defendants

7

Wilcox and Siegel were barred as res judicata. The Court also found that Plaintiff's claims against

8

Defendants Wilcox and Siegel were barred by the related doctrine of collateral estoppel. The Court

9

examined the record and concluded that the state trial judge found, determinatively, that Plaintiff's

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

claims -- that he was denied Seroquel, Wellbutrin, and Lithium -- did not constitute Eighth

11

Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Thus, the Court found

12

that Plaintiff was collaterally estopped from arguing, as against Defendants Wilcox and Siegel, that

13

this same denial of medication amounted to an Eighth Amendment violation.

14

Defendants Palmer, Cowan, and Benedetti argued that Plaintiff's due process claims against

15

them were also barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, based on California

16

state courts' denials of Plaintiff's habeas petition in the Monterey County Superior Court cases In re

17

Michael Alan Yocom, Case no. HC 6813, and In re Michael Alan Yocom, Case no. HC 6874, and in

18

the subsequent state court appeals. Again, in its March 30, 2012 Order, the Court granted

19

Defendants Palmer's, Cowan's, and Benedetti's motion upon determining that: (1) Plaintiff's due

20

process causes of action were the same in his state habeas cases as in this case; and (2) because after

21

giving Plaintiff a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims the state courts found no due process

22

violation in any of the disciplinary proceedings, Plaintiff's due process claims were barred as res

23

judicata.

24

In its March 30, 2012 Order, the Court also determined that a similar result was also

25

appropriate as to the claims against unserved Defendants Grounds and Sisk because: (1) the

26

controlling issue, whether Plaintiff's due process claims were barred upon having already been

27

decided in California state court, would have been the same as to unserved Defendants Grounds and

28

Sisk, had they been served; (2) Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Grounds and Sisk arose from
3

1

the same purported due process violations as Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Palmer, Cowan,

2

and Benedetti; (3) the California state courts found that Defendants Palmer, Cowan, and Benedetti

3

did not violate Plaintiff's due process rights in the disciplinary hearings at issue in the relevant state

4

court cases; (4) Plaintiff's amended complaint did not specifically claim any other due process

5

violations against Defendants Grounds or Sisk; (5) the California doctrine of collateral estoppel

6

barred Plaintiff from naming new defendants in this case where his same cause of action had already

7

been decided in state court; (6) the issues of res judicata and collateral estoppel had already been

8

fully briefed by the attorney of Defendants Palmer, Cowan, and Benedetti, who would have also

9

represented Defendants Grounds and Sisk; and (7) Plaintiff had been provided an opportunity to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

address Defendants' res judicata and collateral estoppel arguments. Therefore, the Court determined

11

that unserved Defendants Grounds and Sisk were also entitled to judgment on the pleadings.

12

Finally, in its March 30, 2012 Order, the Court denied Plaintiff's cross motion for summary

13

judgment, which consisted of a variety of unrelated allegations regarding the prison staff's treatment

14

of him since he filed this case. The Court concluded that while these allegations may form the basis

15

for a separate case, they were irrelevant to Plaintiff's stated claims of deliberate indifference to his

16

serious medical needs and violations of his due process rights. Therefore, his cross motion for

17

summary judgment was denied on this ground. In the event that Plaintiff claimed that he was

18

entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Court found that his motion was also without merit. The

19

Court determined that it had considered all of the evidence submitted by Defendants, as well as the

20

admissible evidence submitted by Plaintiff, to evaluate whether summary judgment should be

21

granted to Plaintiff. Thus, the Court concluded that Plaintiff has not established that Defendants

22

acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs, or violated his due process rights. Therefore,

23

Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was denied on this ground as well.

24

In his pending motions, Plaintiff takes issue with the fact that the Court granted Defendants'

25

dispositive motions without an "oral hearing." (Pl.'s Apr. 20, 2012 Mot. for Recons. at 4.) Plaintiff

26

also argues that the Court "incorrectly ruled that plaintiff neither has a 'deliberate indifference' case

27

against the parties or the federal receiver." (Id.) Plaintiff claims that in In re Michael Alan Yocom,

28

Case no. HC 6657, "the trial court never addressed either the 8th Amendment 'deliberate
4

1

indifference' complaints surrounding his health care at the prison because the Court ruled on page

2

#2, second paragraph, that [he] failed to exhaust remedies." (Id. at 7.) Thus, Plaintiff argues that his

3

"mental care complaints in Monterey County, the Court of Appeals, or the California Supreme Court

4

absolutely has never been addressed [on] the merits of his complaints in any state court, thus there

5

can be no legal res judicata and/or collateral estoppel effect." (Id. at 8.) Similarly, Plaintiff argues

6

that "no state Court denied any merits of . . . allegations that custody personnel didn't follow mental

7

health protocol in the three disciplinary hearings prior to creating state created liberty interest in the

8

forfeiture of the plaintiff's (90) plus days of conduct credits." (Id. at 11.) Furthermore, Plaintiff

9

claims that "he can demonstrate his case against defendant Kelso based upon his personal

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

involvement in the Constitutional violation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the

11

Supervisor Mr. Kelso's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violations." (Id. at 10.) This Court

12

notes that, in his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff does not seem to challenge the denial of his

13

cross motion for summary judgment.

14

In his May 22, 2012 motion relating to the Court's March 30, 2012 Order, Plaintiff "moves

15

this Court to consolidate his federal habeas corpus proceedings with his (1983) civil rights action,

16

after this Court reverses it's [sic] final judgement [sic]." (Pl.'s May 22, 2012 Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff

17

states that his pending federal habeas corpus action, Case No. C 10-3806 EJD (PR), challenges

18

"prison disciplinary hearing proceedings related to the state created liberty interest forfeitures of

19

conduct credits directly related to the civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 . . . ." (Id. at 2.)

20

Based on Plaintiff's factual arguments that this Court erred in its March 30, 2012 Order

21

granting Defendants' dispositive motions, Defendants are directed to respond to Plaintiff's arguments

22

before the Court can resolve the pending motions relating to its March 30, 2012 Order granting

23

Defendants' dispositive motions.

24
25

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court directs Defendants no later than fourteen (14) days from

26

the date of this Order: (1) to respond Plaintiff's aforementioned arguments requesting

27

reconsideration in his pending motions relating to the Court's March 30, 2012 Order granting

28

Defendants' dispositive motions; (2) to attach copies of any state court decision discussed in their
5

1

response; and (3) to specifically respond to Plaintiff's request to consolidate this action with his

2

federal habeas action, Case No. C 10-3806 EJD (PR), in the event that the Court decides to grant his

3

motion for reconsideration. This matter will be submitted once Defendants file their response. At

4

that time, the Court will resolve Plaintiff's pending motions in a separate written Order.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
DATED:

6/14/12

7

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.10\Yocom3609.fileRESP2recons.wpd

6

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
MICHAEL ALAN YOCOM,
Case Number: CV10-03609 SBA

4
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5
v.
6
CTF-SOLEDAD et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on June 18, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

13
14
15
16
17
18

Michael Alan Yocom K-22960
D6-05L
CTF-Soledad State Prison - South Yard Facility
P.O. Box 690
Soledad, CA 93960-0690
Dated: June 18, 2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.10\Yocom3609.fileRESP2recons.wpd

7