Matthews v. Taylor et al
Filing
196
OPINION AND ORDER. The Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 179 ). Defendants are to file unredacted versions of the Declaration of Jacky Withem and the Declaration of Ron Miles by 11/27/2019. Plaintiff is to file his Third Amended Complaint on or before 12/23/2019. The Court STAYS any further discovery until Matthews files his third amended complaint, and the Court resolves Defendants' response thereto. (See attached nine-page opinion.) Signed on 11/25/2019 by Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman. (Mailed to Plaintiff on 11/26/2019.) (gw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DANIEL J. MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01958-SB
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
CAPTAIN J. FRAZIER, THOMAS
LEMENS, BRIGITTE AMSBERRY,
CURTIS ULRICH, YESENIA RANGEL,
GREG CLARK, JAMES GALLINO, STEVE
BRUNING, KIMBERLY CARRIER,
GREGORY CARLSON, MATTHEW
KEYSER, and TRINA N. WHITAKER,
Defendants.
BECKERMAN, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Daniel Matthews, a self-represented individual in custody, filed this civil rights
action in October 2016 against defendants affiliated with the Eastern Oregon Correctional
Institution (“EOCI”). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned U.S.
Magistrate Judge for all proceedings in this case (ECF No. 183). The Court addresses several
pending motions herein.
///
PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER
BACKGROUND
A.
Procedural History Relating to Matthews’ Second Amended Complaint
In April 2018, this Court recommended that the district judge dismiss all of Matthews’
claims with prejudice, on the ground that Matthews had failed to exhaust his claims, and failed to
state a claim with respect to his fully-exhausted claims. (ECF No. 119.) The district judge
adopted that recommendation in part, and dismissed all claims against the named defendants
with prejudice. (ECF No. 130.) However, the district judge did not dismiss Matthews’ claims
against the unnamed “John Doe” defendants” (two EOCI correctional officers “who responded to
Matthews’s self-harm attempts with gratuitous and pre-emptive levels of force” (Am. Compl. ¶
130), and the Officer in Charge of EOCI’s Disciplinary Segregation Unit in January 2014) or
unnamed “Mailroom Staff” defendants, because Matthews had not had an opportunity to identify
those defendants by name and therefore the Court could not determine if Matthews had
exhausted his claims. (Id.) Only Matthews’ claims against the three John Doe defendants and his
claims against the “Mailroom Staff” are still at issue in this litigation.
At a motions hearing on June 17, 2019, the Court granted Matthews’ motion to substitute
the “John Doe” and “Mailroom Staff” defendants with the names of individual defendants whom
Matthews had identified during discovery. (ECF No. 151.) Thereafter, the Court entered a Notice
of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service, noting the names of the newly-named defendants,
and attached a copy of Matthews’ previously-filed amended complaint. (ECF No. 160.) The
newly-named defendants (hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”) waived service. (ECF No.
163.) Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 179.)
///
///
///
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER
B.
Procedural History Relating to Matthews’ Motions to Compel Discovery and
Motions for Sanctions
At the June 17, 2019 hearing, the Court ordered Defendants to file a supplemental
response to Matthews’ pending discovery motions, explaining why EOCI did not retain video
footage or staff logs from the January 2014 incident at issue in this case. (ECF No. 151.) The
Court allowed Defendants to file their supplemental response ex parte due to the sensitive
institutional security information contained therein, and Defendants timely filed an ex parte
supplemental response with supporting declarations on July 9, 2019. (ECF No. 155.) The filings
would not have appeared on Matthews’ version of the docket, and he was not served with copies
of the materials because they were filed ex parte. After reviewing the ex parte materials and
ruling on Matthews’ discovery motions, the Court ordered Defendants to file a redacted copy of
their supplemental response and to file two of the three declarations (Jacky Withem and Ron
Miles) submitted therewith:
Based upon its in camera review of the sealed materials submitted by Defendants,
the Court has determined that the declaration filed by EOCI’s Operations Captain
[Jason Walker] should remain under seal because it contains sensitive information
relating to prison security. However, one section of Defendants’ Supplemental
Response could be filed on the public docket (“Item #8”), as well as the
declarations of EOCI’s Executive Assistant to the Superintendent and DOJ’s
Paralegal. Therefore, the Court orders Defendants to file the two declarations and
a redacted copy of their Supplemental Response by September 20, 2019, or file a
written explanation as to why those materials should remain under seal.
(Sept. 13, 2019 Order at 6.)
In their response to the Court’s order, Defendants explained that they were submitting
“for the Court’s review” redacted versions of the supplemental response (ECF No. 171) and a
PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER
redacted version of Jason Walker’s declaration (ECF No. 172),1 but they did not file the Jacky
Withem or Ron Miles declarations. (ECF No. 169.) Instead, they explained that unredacted
copies of those declarations should be produced to Matthews (instead of filed in compliance with
the Court’s Order). (ECF No. 169.)
DISCUSSION
In response to the events described above, Matthews filed a series of motions and
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Matthews’ second amended complaint. Following a
November 14, 2019 hearing on the pending motions, the Court enters its rulings herein.
I.
Matthews’ Second Amended Complaint
In response to the district judge’s opinion allowing Matthews to proceed on his
allegations against the unidentified “John Doe” and “Mailroom Staff” defendants, the Court
allowed Matthews to conduct discovery to identify the unnamed defendants referenced in his
original and amended complaints. Matthews moved to substitute several individuals in place of
the unnamed defendants (ECF No. 149), and the Court granted the motion (ECF No. 151).
As discussed at the June 17, 2019, hearing on Matthews’ motion, the Court’s view of the
substitution of parties was that the named parties would be substituted for the “John Doe” and
“Mailroom Staff” placeholders in Matthews’ already-filed amended complaint. Thus, the Court
directed the Notice of Request for Waiver of Service to the newly-named defendants, and
attached a copy of Matthews’ amended complaint. The Court did not order Matthews to file a
second amended complaint, but instead referred to his amended complaint, now naming the
substituted defendants, as the second amended complaint.
1
It is unclear if Defendants believed they filed those materials ex parte, but Defendants
filed the materials on the public docket and the materials were therefore available to Matthews,
mooting any need for the Court’s review prior to production.
PAGE 4 – OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants have now moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, on the ground
that it is identical to the amended complaint and because Matthews has not substituted the
newly-named defendants in place of the “John Doe” and “Mailroom Staff” defendants. (ECF No.
179.) In response, Matthews filed a motion requesting leave to file an amended complaint (ECF
No. 185), a motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 186), and a
motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 184).
It appears that counsel for Defendants did not recall the discussion at the June 17, 2019
hearing that the Court would not require Matthews to file a second amended complaint. Instead,
the Court allowed Matthews to move forward with his amended complaint, with the newlynamed defendants substituted for the “John Doe” and “Mailroom Staff” defendants. In light of
the fact that the Court allowed Matthews to proceed in that manner, the Court denies Defendants’
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 179).
To avoid further confusion, the Court will allow Matthews to file a third amended
complaint. The Court has already dismissed with prejudice Matthews’ claims against all
defendants named in his original and amended complaints, and therefore Matthews may not
include any claims against those defendants in his third amended complaint. Rather, Matthews
may only state claims against the three “John Doe” defendants and the “Mailroom Staff”
defendants referenced in his earlier complaints and identified during discovery. Matthews shall
not include any allegations that are not relevant to the newly-identified defendants, nor may he
include any allegations that are not relevant to the January 14, 2017 incident or his mailroom
complaints referenced in his original and amended complaints.
PAGE 5 – OPINION AND ORDER
The Court denies Matthews’ motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 184), as
Matthews has demonstrated a sufficient ability to articulate his claims and there are no
exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time.
II.
Matthews’ Discovery Motions and Motions for Sanctions
After Defendants filed their response to the Court’s September 13, 2019 Order (ECF No.
169), Matthews filed a motion for sanctions (ECF No. 173), motion for defense to show cause
(ECF No. 174), motion to hold defense in contempt of court (ECF No. 175), motion to compel
(ECF No. 176), and motion to strike Defendants’ motion to strike their supplemental response
and Declaration of Jacky Withem (ECF No. 177). In summary, Matthews challenges
Defendants’ ex parte submission to the Court and Defendants’ failure to file or serve the ex parte
materials in response to the Court’s September 13, 2019 Order. In their omnibus response to
Matthews’ first round of motions (ECF No. 182), Defendants explained that they were awaiting
the Court’s guidance regarding the production of the redacted supplemental response and
redacted Jason Walker declaration, and that they would produce the Withem and Miles
declarations to Matthews “today.” (ECF No. 182.)
Following Defendants’ filing of the motion to dismiss, Matthews filed a series of
additional motions relating to the same discovery issues, including a motion to strike
Defendants’ supplemental response (ECF No. 187), motion for status conference and motion to
strike (ECF No. 188), motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order (ECF No. 189), motion for
sanctions (ECF No. 190), motion to hold defense in contempt/remove defense
counsel/appointment special investigator (ECF No. 191), and motion to compel (ECF No. 192).
Due to the volume of motions filed on the same date, the Court stayed Defendants’ deadlines to
PAGE 6 – OPINION AND ORDER
respond to the motions pending a hearing (ECF No. 193). The Court held a telephonic hearing on
the pending motions on November 14, 2019 (ECF No. 195).
The confusion plaguing this case appears to have begun when the Court allowed
Defendants to file an ex parte supplemental response to Matthews’ discovery motions. Matthews
was not privy to the date or content of those filings, until the Court ordered Defendants to file
publicly a redacted version of the supplemental response and two of the three declarations. It
appears from Defendants’ response to that order (ECF No. 169), that Defendants did not read the
entirety of the Court’s 7-page September 13, 2019 order (ECF No. 168), but perhaps only read
the summary minute order attaching the 7-page order. For example, (a) Defendants proposed
producing the Withem and Miles declarations to Matthews, even though the Court had already
ordered Defendants to file unredacted versions of those declarations, or explain why those
materials should remain under seal; (b) Defendants stated that the Court “did not address the
Declaration of Walker” in its order, when in fact the Court did address the Walker declaration
and did not require Defendants to file a copy of the declaration, but Defendants filed a redacted
copy; and (c) Defendants represented that they were submitting redacted copies of the
supplemental response and the Walker declaration for the Court’s review before producing to
Matthews, but Defendants publicly filed the materials and therefore Matthews necessarily
received a copy. As a result of this misunderstanding, Defendants never filed (and apparently
never served) the Withem and Miles declarations, and Defendants’ proposed redactions of the
supplemental response and Walker declaration were inconsistent with the Court’s instructions in
its order, which did not require Defendants to file the Walker declaration and envisioned the
filing of the supplemental response with more extensive redactions. Thus, Matthews did not
PAGE 7 – OPINION AND ORDER
timely receive the Withem and Miles declarations, and the Court never approved the proposed
redactions to the supplemental response and Walker declaration.
In light of the confusion identified herein, the Court understands Matthews’ frustration
and his perception that Defendants are playing games. However, having carefully reviewed all of
the parties’ recent filings, it is apparent that Defendants did not realize there was a 7-page written
order attached to the September 13, 2019 docket entry. Defendants made a mistake, and the
confusion that followed was not the result of any bad faith. Accordingly, Defendants have not
engaged in any sanctionable conduct.
With respect to the merits of Matthews’ allegations regarding spoliation of video
evidence regarding the January 2014 incident at issue, the Court relies on its prior conclusion
that “EOCI’s failure to retain the [2014] video footage was consistent with its standard policies
and procedures, and was not done with a culpable state of mind or in response to this litigation.”
(Sept. 13, 2019 Order at 5.) At the November 14, 2019 hearing, Defendants agreed to produce
photographs of the cell at issue in the January 2014 incident by December 16, 2019. Pending
Matthews’ filing of his third amended complaint, and resolution of Defendants’ response thereto,
the Court stays any further discovery.2
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court:
(i)
DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No.
179);
2
The Court also suggested at the hearing that Defendants identify additional evidence
that might assure Matthews that Defendants have been transparent with respect to EOCI’s
preservation policies, but the Court does not require any additional production at this time.
PAGE 8 – OPINION AND ORDER
(ii)
GRANTS Matthews’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF No.
185) and Motion for an Extension of Time to File an Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 186), and ORDERS Matthews to file his Third Amended Complaint on or
before December 23, 2019;
(iii)
GRANTS IN PART Matthews’ Motions to Compel/Produce (ECF Nos. 176 and
192), and ORDERS Defendants to file unredacted versions of the Declaration of
Jacky Withem and the Declaration of Ron Miles by November 27, 2019;
(iv)
DENIES Matthews’ Motion to Sanction the Defense (ECF No. 173), Motion for
Order for Defense to Show Cause (ECF No. 174), Motion for Order to Hold
Defense in Contempt of Court (ECF No. 175), Motion to Strike Supplemental
Response and Declaration (ECF No. 177), Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(ECF No. 184), Motion to Strike Supplemental Response and Declaration of
Jason Walker (ECF No. 187), Motion for Status Conference and Motion to Strike
(ECF No. 188), Motion for Reconsideration of Order 168 (ECF No. 189), Motion
for Sanctions (ECF No. 190), and Motion to Hold Defense in Contempt/Remove
Defense Counsel/Appoint Special Investigator (ECF No. 191); and
(v)
STAYS any further discovery until Matthews files his third amended complaint,
and the Court resolves Defendants’ response thereto.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 25th day of November, 2019.
STACIE F. BECKERMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
PAGE 9 – OPINION AND ORDER
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?