William Torres v. Thomas Read ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
WILLIAM TORRES, No. 13-15096
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00724-SOM-
BMK
v.
THOMAS READ; JOHN DOES, 1-10, MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Barry M. Kurren, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2015**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
William Torres brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his sentence
recalculation resulted in post-conviction overdetention that violated his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court denied Torres’s Fed. R. Civ. P.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
56(d) motion to continue discovery and granted Defendant-Appellee Read’s
motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Torres timely
appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a district court’s order denying summary judgment on
the ground of qualified immunity. Rodis v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 558 F.3d 964, 968
(9th Cir. 2009). We review a district court’s order denying additional discovery for
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995,
1000 (9th Cir. 2002).
The two-pronged qualified immunity inquiry asks (1) whether “the officer’s
conduct violated a constitutional right” and (2) whether “the right was clearly
established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. Alston v. Read, 663 F.3d 1094,
1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), overruled
in part on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)). We may
begin our analysis with either prong. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. “The plaintiff
bears the burden to show that the contours of the right were clearly established” at
the time of the alleged misconduct. Clairmont v. Sound Mental Health, 632 F.3d
1091, 1109 (9th Cir. 2011). “We begin with the second prong, and we hold that
Torres has not pled facts indicating that Read violated a “clearly established”
constitutional right. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987).
2
This case is controlled by Alston, 663 F.3d 1094. In Alston, we addressed
the issue of qualified immunity in a § 1983 action against Read alleging Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment violations for substantially the same conduct challenged
by Torres in this case. 663 F.3d at 1096-97. We concluded that “where [a
prisoner’s] institutional file appears complete, the [prisoner’s] sentence was
appropriately recalculated under state law, and the prisoner has presented no
evidence to the contrary,” a prison official had no clearly established duty under
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to a prisoner alleging overdetention
beyond reviewing the prisoner’s institutional file, relevant state laws, and the
original judgment received from the court. Id. at 1099-100. Torres has not alleged
facts showing that his institutional file was incomplete, or that his sentence
recalculation was inappropriate under state law. Therefore, Read did not violate a
clearly established right and he was entitled to summary judgment on both Torres’s
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. See id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres’s Rule 56(d)
motion to continue summary judgment to allow further discovery. Torres failed to
identify specific facts to be obtained in discovery that would have precluded
3
summary judgment. Natural Res. Def. Council v. Houston, 146 F.3d 1118, 1133
(9th Cir. 1998).1
AFFIRMED.
1
Read requests we take judicial notice of his opening brief filed in Alston.
See Dkt. No. 33. The document is a matter of public record. See Lee v. City of Los
Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, we take judicial notice of the
document, but “not for the truth of the facts recited therein.” See id. at 690
(internal quotation marks omitted).
4