Grizzle v. San Diego, County of et al
Filing
150
ORDER (1) Denying Defendants' Motion for Bifurcation, Expedited Evidentiary Hearing, and Entry of Judgment; and (2) Denying as Moot Defendants' Motion to Vacate or Continue the Pretrial Deadlines [Docs. No. 144 , 145 ]. The Court sua sponte grants Defendants fourteen (14) calendar days to file supplemental briefing, if any, should Defendants wish to address exhaustion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro on 1/10/2022. (tcf)
Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 150 Filed 01/10/22 PageID.1488 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ELLIOT SCOTT GRIZZLE,
· 12
Case No.: 17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM
Plaintiff,
13
V.
14
ORDER:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
15
(l)DENYING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR BIFURCATION,
EXPEDITED EVIDENTIARY
HEARING, AND.ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT;·AND
Defendants.
16
17
(2)DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
VACATE OR CONTINUE THE
PRETRIAL DEADLINES
18
19
20
21
[Docs. 144, 145]
22
23
24
On December 13, 2021, Defendants, County of San Diego, William Gore, Lena
25
Lovelace, and Aaron Boorman (collectively, "Defendants") filed a motion for bifurcation,
26 . expedited evidentiary hearing, and entry of judgment on the affirmative defense of failure
27
to exhaust("Motion for Bifurcation"). (Doc. 144.) Defendants seek to bifurcate trial by
28
holding an early evidentiary hearing on the issue of exhaustion claiming bifurcation "is
1
17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM
Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 150 Filed 01/10/22 PageID.1489 Page 2 of 3
.1
appropriate to expedite and economize trial." (Doc. 144-1 at 2.) Additionally, Defendants
2
request the Court to enter judgment in their favor at the conclusion of the requested
3
expedited evidentiary hearing. (Id. at 7.)
4
Following Defendants' Motion for Bifurcation, Defendants filed an ex parte motion
5
to vacate or continue the pretrial deadlines ("Motion to Vacate") pending the outc·ome of
6
Defendants' Motion for Bifurcation. (Doc. 145.) Defendants request the Court to vacate
7
all remaining pretrial dates ih the fourth amended scheduling order (Doc. 142) or in the
8
alternative, continue all dates and deadlines by 90 to 120 days. (Doc. 145 at 2.) Defendants
9
claim "it would be a waste of resources for the parties to complete the pretrial work ... if
10
the case is disposed of at the preliminary hearing requested in the Defendants' Motion for
11
Bifurcation .... " (Id. at 2.)
12
13
For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' Motion for . Bifurcation is DENIED
I
and Defendants' Motion to Vacate is DENIED AS MOOT.
14
A. .
15
"Exhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before reaching the merits of a prisoner's
16
claim." Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014). The Ninth Circuit has held
17
th1;1t "the appropriate procedural device for pretrial determination of whether administrative
18
remedies have. been exhausted under the PLRA . . . is a motion for summary judgment
19
under Rule 56." Id. at 1168.
Motion for Bifurcation
20
Defendants claim a preliminary evidentiary hearing ~s appropriate in the instant case
21
as "Plaintiff intentionally created factual issues to avoid summary judgment" and "testified
22
in a manner designed to avoid summary judgment." (Doc. 144~1 at 5.) However,
23
Defendants recently filed a motion for summary judgment ("MSJ") (Doc. 148) on January
24
5, 2022, but they did not address exhaustion in their MSJ briefing. Therefore, the Court
25
sua sponte grants Defendants fourteen (14) calendar days to file supplemental briefing,
26
if any, should Defendants wish to address exhaustion. An order setting a briefing schedule
27
on the supplemental briefing, if any, response to the MSJ, and reply is forthcoming.
28
Because Defendants may raise the issue of exhaustion in their summary judgment motion,
2
17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM
Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-RBM Document 150 Filed 01/10/22 PageID.1490 Page 3 of 3
1 bifurcation of trial and an expedited evidentiary hearing are unnecessary.
•2
3
For the
foregoing reasons, Defendants' request for bifurcation, expedited evidentiary hearing, and
entry of judgment on the affirmative defense of exhaustion is DENIED.
4
B.
5
A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and with
6
the judge's consent. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
7
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating, "the focus of [the good cause] inquiry is
8
upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification.").
Motion to Vacate
9
As to the request to vacate or otherwise continue the remaining pretrial dates pending
10
the outcome of Defendants' request for bifurcation of trial, evidentiary hearing, and entry
11
of judgment, the Motion to Vacate is DENIED AS MOOT.
12
13
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2022
~~·
6N:ru..frH B~EZMONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17 ~cv-00813-JLSc RBM
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?