(PC) Church v. Naftzger ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JACK CHURCH, Case No.: 1:17-cv-00596-AWI-JLT (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 12 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 J. NAFTZGER, CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DENYING MOTION 14 Defendant. TO STRIKE 15 (Docs. 43, 48, 53, 55) 16 17 Plaintiff Jack Church is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action. Plaintiff’s sole operative claim is for an alleged procedural due process 19 violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 21 at 3.) This matter was referred to a United States 20 magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 29, 2019, Defendant J. Naftzger filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 22 43.) Plaintiff filed an opposition and cross-moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 48.) Plaintiff also 23 filed a motion to strike “Defendant’s changed pleadings,” i.e., Defendant’s reply to Plaintiff’s 24 opposition. (Doc. 53.) 25 On November 5, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 26 recommendations to grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgement, deny Plaintiff’s cross- 27 motion for summary judgment, and deny Plaintiff’s motion to strike. (Doc. 55.) The magistrate judge found that, according to the uncontested facts, Plaintiff did not suffer a due process 1 violation. (See id. at 1-2, 9-11.) The magistrate judge also found that, in his reply, Defendant only 2 addressed issues raised in his motion for summary judgment and in Plaintiff’s opposition; thus, 3 his reply was proper. (See id. at 11.) 4 Plaintiff filed objections on December 27, 2019, to which Defendant filed a reply. (Docs. 5 58, 59.) Plaintiff argues that the Court should not dismiss this action “because he failed to 6 articulate and state a properly stated claim,” and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and the 7 liberal pleading standards for pro se litigants oblige the Court to grant him leave to amend his 8 complaint. (Doc. 58 at 1-2.) Plaintiff states that, had he properly drafted his complaint, he would 9 have included a claim that “Defendants acted with … deliberate indifference to his medical 10 condition.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff does not address the findings regarding his motion to strike. 11 The Court does not find it proper to allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint at this late 12 stage of litigation. Plaintiff filed this action in April of 2017, and the deadline for parties to amend 13 their pleadings and complete discovery expired on July 11, 2019. (Docs. 1, 29). Thus, the Court 14 would be required to reopen discovery and significantly delay this action if it were to grant 15 Plaintiff leave to amend. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sols., Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 16 (9th Cir. 1999) (“A need to reopen discovery and therefore delay the proceedings supports a 17 district court’s finding of prejudice from a delayed motion to amend the complaint.”). 18 Furthermore, Plaintiff attempted to raise a deliberate indifference claim in his first amended 19 complaint, but the Court found it incognizable and ordered it dismissed. (See Doc. No. 21 at 3; 20 see also Doc. No. 19 at 7-10.) Further, Plaintiff fails to articulate any facts that support a 21 cognizable claim as part of his objections. This suggests futility. Therefore, the Court finds that 22 Plaintiff’s has failed to demonstrate that permitting an amendment at this late juncture is 23 appropriate; his request will be denied. See Lockheed Martin Corp., 194 F.3d at 986. 24 Regarding Plaintiff’s due process claim, the magistrate judge did not recommend 25 dismissal because Plaintiff failed to properly state a claim on which relief can be granted. The 26 magistrate judge already found that Plaintiff stated a viable due process claim in its first screening 27 order. (Doc. 10.) Rather, the magistrate judge found that that undisputed facts show that Plaintiff wow 4:4 FUE YM VR IO er POY VM VI 1 Plaintiff also argues that Defendant should not be subject to qualified immunity. (Doc. 58 2 | at 3.) However, the magistrate judge did not reach the issue of qualified immunity because it 3 | found that Plaintiff's due process rights were not violated. (Doc. 55 at 5.) 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), this Court has conducted a 5 | de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 6 | and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 5, 2019, (Doc. 55), are 9 ADOPTED in full; 10 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 43), is GRANTED; 11 3. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 48), is DENIED; 12 A, Plaintiff's motion to strike, (Doc. 53), is DENIED; and, 13 5. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | Dated: _ September 17, 2020 —= ZS Cb □□ — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28