Curtis v. Benda, et al.
Filing
167
ORDER granting 163 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; the discvoery deadline is extneded until 6/9/2011, for the sole purpose of allowing Plaintiff to take the deposition of Timothy Davis. The Clerk shall strike the noting date of Defendant Riley's 148 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
7
8
JAMES EDWARD CURTIS,
No. 08-5109 BHS/KLS
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
ORDER GRANTING RULE 56(d)
CONTINUANCE
v.
TERRY J. BENDA and WILLIAM E.
RILEY,
Defendants.
13
14
15
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for discovery and continuance pursuant to Fed. R.
16
Civ. P. 56(d). ECF No. 163. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the motion
17
should be granted and discovery extended for the sole purpose of allowing Plaintiff to take the
18
deposition of Timothy Davis.
19
20
BACKGROUND
On October 13, 2002, Plaintiff James Edward Curtis, a white male, along with another
21
22
white male inmate (Steven Eggers), assaulted James Wilkinson, a fellow inmate, who is an
23
African-American male. ECF No. 44, pp. 8-9 (Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint). A criminal
24
information was filed on December 3, 2004, which charged Mr. Curtis with second degree
25
assault while armed with a deadly weapon, with alleged aggravating circumstances that the
26
crime was gang-related and/or racially motivated. ECF No. 112-19, p. 7. Defendant Benda
ORDER - 1
1
conducted the investigation into the assault, in conjunction with the Clallam County
2
Prosecutor’s Office. He provided his investigative report to the Clallam County Sheriff’s Office
3
(ECF No. 44, pp. 90-93) and a signed declaration in support of probable cause to the Clallam
4
County Prosecutor’s Office. ECF No. 112-19, p. 3. Defendant Riley also provided a written
5
statement to the Clallam County Sheriff’s Office, which Mr. Curtis asserts falsely connected
6
7
Mr. Curtis with the Aryan Family gang. ECF No. 44, pp. 84-85. Based on the information
8
gathered in the investigation, Mr. Benda believed the assault was racially-motivated and gang-
9
related. Id., p. 95. All charges against Mr. Curtis were subsequently dropped by the Clallam
10
11
12
County Prosecutor’s Office on September 8, 2005. ECF No. 26, p. 7.
Mr. Curtis admits that he assaulted Mr. Wilkinson, an African-American inmate. ECF
No. 44, pp. 7-8. However, he asserts that the assault was not gang related and that it was not
13
racially motivated and therefore the assault charge against him should not have included the
14
15
alleged aggravating circumstances. He alleges, however, that Mr. Benda and Mr. Riley
16
fabricated evidence during their investigation, which evidence was used to support the inclusion
17
of the aggravating circumstances of the assault charge. If the aggravating circumstances had
18
been proven at trial, Mr. Curtis could have been subjected to a harsher sentence than that
19
allowed by the standard sentencing range. As noted below, summary judgment in favor of Mr.
20
Benda on Plaintiff’s claims has been granted.
21
22
Mr. Curtis alleges that Defendant Riley obtained a personal letter that Mr. Curtis
23
“reportedly wrote to a friend (i.e., Larry Kisinger)” that ended with the closing, “Always &
24
Forever.” According to Mr. Curtis, Defendant Riley then coerced several known Aryan Family
25
members, who are also controlled informants, to write and close their letters using the words
26
“Always & Forever,” and then referenced this “fabricated evidence” of Mr. Curtis’ gang
ORDER - 2
1
affiliation in a written statement provided to the Clallam County Sheriff’s Office. ECF No. 44-
2
2, pp. 32-35.
3
4
On September 8, 2009, the Court entered an order staying all discovery in this case
pending resolution of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on absolute and
5
qualified immunity. ECF No. 74. The Court concluded that a stay was appropriate “[g]iven the
6
7
early stages of this litigation – an amended complaint was just filed four months hence and the
8
amount of discovery already propounded and anticipated . . . .” Id. at 4. Defendants submitted
9
their first motion for summary judgment based on qualified and absolute immunity, originally
10
noted for October 30, 2009. ECF No. 82. Plaintiff was granted two extensions of time to
11
respond to the first motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 90 and 102. On March 2, 2010,
12
Plaintiff moved for a continuance, pursuant to former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), so that he could
13
depose Tim Davis, the former Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney. ECF No. 103. That
14
15
motion was denied on March 8, 2010. ECF No. 105. The court found that there was no need
16
for discovery at that time on the issues absolute immunity as to both Defendants and qualified
17
immunity as to Defendant Benda. Id., p. 5.
18
19
20
Defendants’ first motion for summary judgment was granted as to qualified immunity
for Defendant Benda and denied as to absolute immunity for both Defendants Benda and
Riley. ECF No. 134. On December 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to re-open discovery. ECF
21
22
No. 147. That motion was denied. ECF No. 154. On December 15, 2010, Defendant Riley filed
23
a second motion for summary judgment asserting that he is entitled to qualified immunity. ECF
24
No. 148. Plaintiff’s motions for continuance of the second motion for summary judgment were
25
granted, most recently to May 20, 2011. ECF Nos. Nos. 155 and 160.
26
Plaintiff now files another motion for continuance, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
ORDER - 3
1
56(d), so that he may take the deposition of Timothy Davis. ECF No. 163. Plaintiff provides
2
his declaration in support of the extension, along with documents obtained by Plaintiff in
3
February 2011 from a fellow inmate, who obtained them through a public records request. ECF
4
No. 165. The documents include emails from Timothy Davis to William Riley dated November
5
25, 2002 and November 27, 2005 (ECF No. 165, pp. 17 and 18); an undated memorandum
6
7
purportedly from Timothy Davis to an unnamed individual (ECF No. 165, p. 20); an unsigned
8
draft letter to Tim Davis regarding Mr. Riley’s investigation, the meaning of the letters “AF,”
9
Plaintiff Curtis’s debrief following the assault and his association with the Aryan Family (ECF
10
No. 165, p. 22); and, the Affidavit of William Riley regarding the Security Threat Group (STG)
11
and the importance of keeping confidential, the information gathered through DOC’s intelligence
12
efforts relating to STGs (ECF No. 165, p. 25). The undated memorandum purportedly written by
13
Timothy Davis to his successor prosecutor states, in part:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
At the early stages, the former boss of I&I (Steve Winters) and DOC’s Bill Riley,
their prison gang guru were both involved in getting this one filed with all the
enhancements possible. Each had an agenda, at times conflicting perhaps. All in
all, it was a mistake to have followed their requests (Riley more than Winters,
who just wanted to get it charged).
…
At the outset this was charged with an enhancement for gang related and also
racial motivation (Riley and Winters). His extensive discovery requests, some of
which DOC did not want to deal with (though I have heard that the AG office
supplied the requested information and documents that we had rejected when a
PDR was sent in) resulted in the scales falling from my eyes and the dropping of
those aggravators in favor of the straight Assault 2.
22
23
ECF No. 165, p. 20.
DISCUSSION
24
25
Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
26
If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it
cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:
ORDER - 4
1
(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
2
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or
3
(3) issue any other appropriate order.
4
5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (formerly subdivision (f)).
6
7
8
Cases interpreting former subdivision (f), make clear that a party seeking a continuance
under Rule 56 must demonstrate that there are specific facts he hopes to discover if granted a
continuance that will raise a genuine issue of material fact. Harris v. Duty Free Shoppers Ltd.
9
Partnership, 940 F.2d 1272, 1276 (9th Cir.1991); Carpenter v. Universal Star Shipping, S.A.,
10
11
924 F.2d 1539, 1547 (9th Cir.1991). “The burden is on the party seeking to conduct additional
12
discovery to put forth sufficient facts to show that the evidence sought exists.” Volk v. D.A.
13
Davidson & Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 1416 (9th Cir.1987). See also Tatum v. City and County of San
14
Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir.2006); California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th
15
Cir. 1998) (party opposing on Rule 56(f) grounds needs to state the specific facts he hopes to
16
elicit from further discovery, that the facts sought exist and that the sought-after facts are
17
essential to resisting the summary judgment motion); Hancock v. Montgomery Ward Long Term
18
19
Disability Trust, 787 F.2d 1302, 1306 n. 1 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that the party opposing
20
summary judgment “has the burden under Rule 56(f) to show what facts he hopes to discover to
21
raise an issue of material fact”).1
22
A civil rights plaintiff opposing a claim of qualified immunity must establish the
23
existence of a constitutional violation, clearly established law to support the claim, and that no
24
reasonable official could believe their conduct was lawful. Pearson, et al. v. Callahan, 555
25
26
1
Of course, pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285,
50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (pro se complaints, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”).
ORDER - 5
1
U.S. 223, 129 S. Ct. 808 (2009); Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 2155 (2001);
2
Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991). The test for qualified immunity is an objective test
3
requiring the Plaintiff to prove a reasonable official could not believe his actions were
4
constitutional. See Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 871 (9th Cir. 1993); Hunter v.
5
Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 112 S. Ct. 534, 537 (1991).
6
7
There is a “clearly established constitutional due process right not to be subjected to
8
criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the
9
government.” Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2001). Under the
10
Fourteenth Amendment, there exists a “right not to be deprived of liberty without due process
11
of law, or more specifically, as the result of the fabrication of evidence by a government officer
12
acting in an investigative capacity.” See, e.g., Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Auth., 124 F.3d
13
123, 130 (2d Cir.1997) (“When a police officer creates false information likely to influence a
14
15
jury’s decision and forwards that information to prosecutors, he violates the accused’s
16
constitutional right to a fair trial ....”). To support a claim for deliberate fabrication of evidence,
17
a plaintiff must, at a minimum, produce evidence that supports one of the following
18
propositions: (1) the defendants continued their investigation of an individual despite the fact
19
that they knew or should have known he was innocent; and (2) defendants used investigative
20
techniques that were so coercive and abusive that they knew or should have known those
21
22
techniques would yield false information. Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1076.
23
In his motion for summary judgment, Defendant Riley argues that he is entitled to
24
qualified immunity, in part, because the statement made by Defendant Riley which was provided
25
to the prosecuting attorney was not used by the Court in determining probable cause or charging
26
ORDER - 6
1
Plaintiff with the enhancement of committing a racially motivated or gang-related crime. ECF
2
No. 148, p. 7.
3
4
Plaintiff argues that the deposition of Timothy Davis is essential to his opposition to
Defendant Riley’s motion for summary judgment because Mr. Riley’s qualified immunity
5
defense raises a factual question as to whether Defendant Riley’s allegedly fabricated evidence
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
was used by Mr. Davis to charge and/or prosecute Mr. Curtis. He further argues that such
deposition testimony, along with the recently discovered material will:
… . conclusively show that [Mr. Davis] charged Plaintiff with the gang-related
enhancement at mainly Defendant Riley’s behest, and that Defendant Riley
knowingly and intentionally provided [Mr. Davis] his affidavit containing the
fabricated evidence in the midst of the criminal prosecution, intending and
believing Mr. Davis would use said evidence in rebuttal to influence the jury’s
decision.
ECF No. 163, p. 3.
In an abundance of caution and in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will grant
Plaintiff additional time to pursue this additional discovery and will extend the discovery
deadline until June 9, 2011 for the sole purpose of allowing Plaintiff to take the deposition of
17
Timothy Davis. The court will strike the noting date of Defendants’ motion for summary
18
19
judgment and Defendants may renew their motion after expiration of the new discovery deadline
20
date by filing and serving a motion that simply incorporates by reference all evidence and
21
arguments submitted in connection with the motion for summary judgment now pending before
22
the court or by filing a completely new motion. Upon Defendants’ renewal of their motion for
23
summary judgment, Plaintiff shall timely file his opposition. Plaintiff will not be granted any
24
additional time for this purpose absent a compelling showing of good cause.
25
26
ORDER - 7
1
To facilitate discovery efforts, the Court anticipates that the parties will continue to
2
cooperate in good faith to schedule Mr. Davis’s deposition. If the parties cannot agree, the Court
3
suggests the following:
4
5
6
7
8
9
(a)
The deposition shall take place at or near the Monroe Correctional
Complex (MCC), organized with the assistance of authorities at the MCC.
(b)
If the parties cannot agree otherwise, the deposition shall be
conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 28; this
should be an independent party without any interest in the matter and Defendants
should in good faith seek to allow or agree to use an employee of the Department
of Corrections to perform these duties to alleviate the high cost of using a private
business; in any event the taped deposition shall include the information indicated
in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4);
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
(c)
The individual either chosen by the parties or appointed by the
court to provide the oath at a deposition shall also operate two tape recorders to
produce two original recordings of a deposition. (If the parties are unable to agree
to an individual and before the court is willing to appoint an individual to
administer oral depositions for Plaintiff, Plaintiff must explore other means to
conduct discovery. Specifically, Plaintiff should consider Rule 31 to obtain
information. The parties shall also note Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides alternatives to general discovery practice and procedure, and
the court encourages the parties to mutually work out discovery complications.
Parties should inform the court of stipulations made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
29).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
(d)
Defendants’ counsel may attend the deposition and Defendants
may record a deposition on his or her own equipment or Defendants may ask
Plaintiff to produce a copy of the original tape at Defendants’ cost; Defendants
may choose to stenographically record the deposition at their own cost.
(e)
At the end of the deposition, the plastic tab(s) on each original
cassette shall be removed to help prevent the tape from being erased or recorded
on a second time.
(f)
At the end of the deposition one original tape shall be placed in an
envelope, sealed, and signed by the person chosen or appointed to give the oath;
this tape recording shall be delivered in its sealed state to the Clerk of the Court
for filing with the court record.
25
26
(g)
If the testimony from the deposition is to be used by either party in
a motion, pleading or any aspect of the trial, the party proposing to use that
ORDER - 8
1
testimony must supply the court with a written transcript of the relevant portions
of the deposition;
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(h)
A transcript of the deposition shall not be filed with the court
unless it is to be used by a party in a motion, pleading, or trial of this matter; a
transcript of the deposition, in whole or in part, shall not be filed with the court
unless the deponent has had the opportunity to review and make any changes or
corrections he or she deems necessary.
(i)
Any challenges to the accuracy or trustworthiness of a transcript
filed by a party can be raised in an objection served and filed by the opposing
party in a responsive brief or appropriate and timely motion.
(j)
If the recording is of poor quality and the court cannot understand
the tape and transcription, the recorded deposition shall not be utilized by either
party for any purpose.
10
11
If the parties cannot agree, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) states that a party moving to compel
12
discovery must “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted
13
to confer with the party not making disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court
14
action.” Local Court Rule 37(a)(1)(A) explicitly states “[a] good faith effort to confer with a
15
party or person not making a disclosure or discovery requires a face-to-face meeting or a
16
telephonic conference.” The court will not entertain discovery motions that fail to include a
17
certification that a good faith attempt to confer was first made.
18
19
20
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (ECF No.
21
163) is GRANTED; the discovery deadline is extended until June 9, 2011 for the sole purpose
22
of allowing Plaintiff to take the deposition of Timothy Davis. The Clerk shall strike the
23
noting date of Defendant Riley’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 148).
24
(2)
At the expiration of the new discovery deadline of June 9, 2011, Defendant Riley
25
26
may either file an amended motion for summary judgment including a new brief and supporting
documents, or simply renew their motion by filing a notice of such renewal incorporating by
ORDER - 9
1
reference all arguments and evidence submitted in connection with their motion for summary
2
judgment filed on December 15, 2010.
3
4
(3)
The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for
Defendants.
5
6
DATED this 9th day of May, 2011.
A
7
8
Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 10
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?