Bolden v. Arana
Filing
31
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment, denying 30 MOTION for Sanctions. Amended Pleadings due by 11/5/2018. (Certificate of Service Attached). (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2018)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
WILLIE BOLDEN,
Plaintiff,
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Case No. 17-cv-05607-PJH
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
v.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 20, 30
O. ARANA,
Defendant.
14
15
This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. §
16
1983. His claims arise from his detention at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”).
17
Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed an opposition and
18
defendant has filed a reply. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summary
19
judgment is granted.
Motion for Summary Judgment
20
21
Legal Standards
22
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show
23
that there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
24
judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those which may
25
affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
26
(1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a
27
reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
28
1
The moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying
2
those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence
3
of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986);
4
Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). When
5
the moving party has met this burden of production, the nonmoving party must go beyond
6
the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts showing that
7
there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. If the nonmoving party fails to produce enough
8
evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact, the moving party wins. Id.
9
"Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five
basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4)
12
chilled the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not
13
reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal." Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559,
14
567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). Accord Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th
15
Cir. 1995) (prisoner suing prison officials under § 1983 for retaliation must allege that he
16
was retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action
17
did not advance legitimate penological goals, such as preserving institutional order and
18
discipline); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (same).
19
Background
20
In this case plaintiff alleges that on December 21, 2016, a correctional officer
21
searched his cell and confiscated several items. Plaintiff stated he would file an
22
administrative grievance if the items were not returned and he alleges that the
23
correctional officer threatened him, stating, “I’ll get you for that.” Complaint at 7.
24
According to plaintiff, the correctional officer later learned that plaintiff was found not
25
guilty at a Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) disciplinary hearing and stated, “[n]o way. I’ll
26
fix that.” Complaint at 8. The correctional officer, according to plaintiff, immediately
27
spoke with the hearing officer and plaintiff was found guilty of the violation. Plaintiff
28
further alleges that the correctional officer then stated, “I warned you I’d get you.” Id.
2
1
Plaintiff named O. Arana, the correctional officer at issue, as the sole defendant in this
2
case. O. Arana was identified in the paperwork for the RVR as the correctional officer
3
involved. Opposition (Docket No. 23) Ex. A4-A7.
4
The court ordered service on November 2, 2017. Defendant O. Arana filed this
5
motion for summary judgment on May 29, 2018. The motion includes a declaration from
6
a correctional lieutenant who stated that the RVR paperwork contained a mistake and
7
that O. Arana was not the correctional officer involved in the incident and did not appear
8
at the RVR hearing. Motion for summary judgment (“MSJ’), Rojas Decl. ¶ 3.
Defendant’s attorney previously informed plaintiff of this error in discovery
10
responses. Docket No. 21 at 2. However, neither defendant’s attorney or correctional
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
staff at SQSP provided plaintiff with the correct identity of the correctional officer involved
12
for plaintiff to amend the complaint. Nor does it appear that a corrected RVR was
13
provided to plaintiff with the correct name. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery
14
that contained many requests, including requests for the names of people involved in the
15
incident because defendant did not identify the actual correctional officer who was
16
involved. Defendant filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion for
17
summary judgment. The court denied the motion to compel without prejudice and
18
granted the motion to stay, noting that the motion for summary judgment only concerned
19
whether defendant O. Arana was involved, and that discovery that he was not involved in
20
the incident had been provided. The court also noted that defendant had failed to provide
21
plaintiff with the name of the correct defendant.
22
In response to a recent order from the court, defendant has indicated that the
23
correct defendant involved in this incident was S. Arana. Docket No. 29. Plaintiff has
24
requested an extension to file an amended complaint. Docket No. 30.
25
26
ANALYSIS
During the relevant time, December 21, 2016, plaintiff was housed in the West
27
Block at SQSP. Complaint at 6. Defendant’s primary assignment was with the
28
psychiatric inpatient infirmary. MSJ, Arana Decl. ¶ 2. Defendant worked at the infirmary
3
1
in December 2016. Id. at ¶¶ 2-4. Defendant’s work records and sign-in sheets indicate
2
he was working at the infirmary on December 21, 2016, and his supervisor confirmed that
3
Defendant was not assigned to the West Block in December 2016. MSJ, Pitt Decl. ¶¶ 3-
4
5; Cervantes Decl., Exs. A, B.
5
Plaintiff does not allege that he personally knows defendant and is aware that it
6
was in fact defendant who was involved. Plaintiff argues that defendant was identified in
7
the paperwork. Opposition at 7-8. Plaintiff notes that had he been provided with the
8
name of the correct correctional officer he would have amended the complaint.
9
Opposition at 11.
10
This motion for summary judgment concerns defendant’s identity. Defendant has
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
met his burden in demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to
12
whether he is the proper defendant. The work records and sign-in sheets demonstrate
13
that defendant was working in the infirmary on the day of the incident and was not in the
14
West Block where plaintiff was located, and the incident occurred. Plaintiff has failed to
15
show that there is a genuine issue for trial. Plaintiff does not allege that he knows
16
defendant and recognizes him as the correctional officer in question. Plaintiff only relies
17
on the paperwork that identified defendant. “When opposing parties tell two different
18
stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury
19
could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on
20
a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-83 (2007). In this
21
case, plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence that defendant O. Arana was the
22
correctional officer involved. Defendant has now provided the identity of the appropriate
23
correctional officer involved and plaintiff indicates he wishes to amend the complaint.
24
Therefore, summary judgment is granted as to defendant O. Arana.
25
26
27
28
CONCLUSION
1. For the reasons set forth above, the motion for summary judgment (Docket No.
20) is GRANTED and O. Arana is DISMISSED from this case.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to amend the complaint to name S.
4
1
Arana as defendant (Docket No. 30) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended
2
complaint with the name of the correct defendant by November 5, 2018. Plaintiff’s
3
request for sanctions is DENIED.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 23, 2018
6
7
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
WILLIE BOLDEN,
Case No. 17-cv-05607-PJH
Plaintiff,
6
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
7
8
O. ARANA,
Defendant.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
12
13
14
15
16
That on October 23, 2018, 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.
17
18
19
Willie Bolden ID: E-94314
San Quentin State Prison
1 Main Street
San Quentin, CA 94964
20
21
Dated: October 23, 2018
22
23
24
Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
25
26
27
________________________
Kelly Collins, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
28
6
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?