Valson v. Mesa et al

Filing 24

ORDER granting 16 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Joseph Mesa. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/29/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

VJ VALSON,
4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6

JOSEPH MESA, et al.,
7

Defendants.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:15-cv-00082-GMN-NJK
ORDER

9

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant

10
11

Joseph Mesa (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff VJ Valson (“Plaintiff”)1 filed a response,

12

(ECF No. 20), and Defendant filed a reply, (ECF No. 21). For the reasons discussed below,

13

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

14

I.

BACKGROUND
On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff drove his 1974 Chevy Blazer to the State of Nevada Parole

15
16

and Probation Office on 215 E. Bonanza Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. (See Compl. at 4, ECF

17

No. 9). While at the office, Plaintiff alleges that he had a “verbal disagreement” with his parole

18

officer, Defendant Joseph Mesa. (Id.). As a result of this exchange, Plaintiff alleges that

19

Defendant arrested him without probable cause and had his vehicle towed, despite his uncle

20

being available to drive the vehicle home. (Id.). According to Defendant, however, he arrested

21

Plaintiff for violating the terms of Plaintiff’s parole and had the vehicle towed because it was

22

unattended. (See Def.’s MSJ 6:11–17, ECF No. 16; see also Parole and Probation Report, Ex. 1

23

to Def.’s MSJ, ECF No. 16-1).

24
25

In light of Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant, the Court has liberally construed his filings, holding them to
standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007).
1

Page 1 of 5

1

On December 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Complaint before this Court, alleging three

2

causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl.). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges: (1) the

3

towing of his vehicle violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

4

States Constitution; (2) the decision to tow the vehicle violated his First Amendment right to be

5

free from retaliation; and (3) the impoundment of his vehicle resulted in an excessive fine in

6

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.).

7

II.

8
9

LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication when the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

10

affidavits, if any, show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant

11

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that

12

may affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

13

(1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable

14

jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See id. “Summary judgment is inappropriate if

15

reasonable jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, could return a verdict

16

in the nonmoving party’s favor.” Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th

17

Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103–04 (9th Cir. 1999)). A

18

principal purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported

19

claims.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986).

20

In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. “When

21

the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come

22

forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went

23

uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing

24

the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case.” C.A.R. Transp.

25

Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). In

Page 2 of 5

1

contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the

2

moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an

3

essential element of the nonmoving party’s case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving

4

party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party’s case

5

on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323–

6

24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and

7

the court need not consider the nonmoving party’s evidence. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,

8

398 U.S. 144, 159–60 (1970).

9

If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing

10

party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.

11

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute,

12

the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is

13

sufficient that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the

14

parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors

15

Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid

16

summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual

17

data. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposition must go

18

beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing

19

competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.

20

At summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth

21

but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. The

22

evidence of the nonmovant is “to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in

23

his favor.” Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not

24

significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See id. at 249–50.

25

Page 3 of 5

1
2

III.

DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that he is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity

3

grounds. (Def.’s MSJ 3:14–15, ECF No. 16). “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects

4

government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate

5

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

6

known.’” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817–18 (1982). The Court’s inquiry turns on the

7

“objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were

8

clearly established at the time it was taken.” Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 (1999).

9

A right is “clearly established” if it is “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official

10

would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Reichle v. Howards, 132 S.

11

Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012). In other words, “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or

12

constitutional question beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011). The

13

plaintiff “bears the burden of proving that the rights she claims were ‘clearly established’ at the

14

time of the alleged violation.” Moran v. State of Washington, 147 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir.

15

1998); see also Shoshone-Banncock Tribes v. Fish & Game Comm’n, Idaho, 42 F.3d 1278,

16

1285 (9th Cir. 1994).

17

Here, Defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because “[t]here is no

18

‘clearly established’ right to not having one’s illegally parked car towed, even if efforts have

19

been made to have the car retrieved by another person.” (Def.’s Suppl. Resp. 3:15–17, ECF No.

20

23). In support of this assertion, Defendant cites to an image indicating that the parole office

21

parking is a tow away zone. (See Parking Sign, Ex. A to Def.’s Suppl. Resp). Plaintiff does not

22

dispute that the vehicle was left parked at the probation office. (See Pl.’s Resp. at 2, ECF No.

23

20). Accordingly, and based on the record, the Court finds that Defendant’s decision to tow the

24

vehicle was justified under Defendant’s community caretaking functions. See, e.g., Miranda v.

25

Page 4 of 5

1

City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2005); see also South Dakota v. Opperman, 428

2

U.S. 364, 369 (1976).

3

Even absent such a finding, the ultimate burden is on Plaintiff to show that the alleged

4

rights were clearly established at the time of the incident. Moran, 147 F.3d at 844. Plaintiff has

5

provided no factual or legal evidence demonstrating that Defendant violated a clearly

6

established right in towing the vehicle parked at the probation office.2 Accordingly, the Court

7

finds Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

8

IV.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement, (ECF

9
10

CONCLUSION

No. 16), is GRANTED.
29
DATED this _____ day of September, 2017.

11
12
13

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

On August 25, 2017, out of an abundance of caution and in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court ordered
additional briefing on the qualified immunity issue. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s Order.
2

Page 5 of 5