(PC) Williams v. Newsom ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 BENNY WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:19-cv-02229-KJM-JDP (PC) 6 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 7 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND v. ANSWER 8 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., ECF No. 40 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 10 SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED 11 ECF No. 39 12 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 13 14 Plaintiff is a state prisoner who alleges that defendants Newsom, Shaffer, and Bakerjian 15 violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights when they disregarded state provisions governing his 16 eligibility for elderly parole. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. He has filed a motion for summary judgment on 17 those claims that should be denied.1 Additionally, defendants have filed a motion to amend their 18 answer that will be granted. 19 Defendants’ Motion to Amend Answer 20 Defendants have asked to amend their answer to add the affirmative defenses of res 21 judicata and collateral estoppel. ECF No. 40 at 3. They state that the issues raised in this case 22 were litigated and rejected when plaintiff raised them in a state habeas petition. Id. Since more 23 than twenty-one days have passed since the filing of the original answer, defendants can only 24 amend with plaintiff’s consent or leave of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Here, plaintiff has 25 opposed defendants’ amendment. ECF No. 48. Thus, defendants can only amend by my leave, 26 1 Defendants have also filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 51. At the time of 27 writing that motion is not yet ripe for disposition, however. It will be adjudicated by separate findings and recommendations. 1 which I should give freely “when justice so requires.” Id. 2 I will grant defendants’ motion. Motions to amend should be denied only where the 3 amendment would “cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or 4 creates undue delay.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). 5 In his opposition, plaintiff claims that defendants have brought the motion to amend in bad faith 6 and with dilatory motive, but he offers no evidence to substantiate his position. Neither has 7 plaintiff shown that he would be prejudiced if defendants were allowed to add these affirmative 8 defenses to their answer. Finally, plaintiff’s substantive argument against res judicata fails to 9 establish futility. Denying leave to amend as futile is appropriate only where “no set of facts can 10 be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim 11 or defense.” Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). And, generally, 12 courts should defer challenges to the merits of amendments until after the amendments are 13 accepted and filed. See Netbula, LLC v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 14 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 15 I. Legal Standards 16 Summary judgment is appropriate where there is “no genuine dispute as to any material 17 fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Washington 18 Mutual Inc. v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). An issue of fact is genuine 19 only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to find for the non-moving party, 20 while a fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” 21 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 22 F.2d 1422, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987). 23 Rule 56 allows a court to grant summary adjudication, also known as partial summary 24 judgment, when there is no genuine issue of material fact as to a claim or portion of that claim. 25 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Lies v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 765, 769 n.3 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Rule 26 56 authorizes a summary adjudication that will often fall short of a final determination, even of a 27 single claim . . . .”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The standards that apply on a 28 motion for summary judgment and a motion for summary adjudication are the same. See Fed. R. 1 Civ. P. 56 (a), (c); Mora v. Chem-Tronics, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1192, 1200 (S.D. Cal. 1998). 2 Each party’s position must be supported by (1) citing to particular portions of materials in 3 the record, including but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or 4 (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute 5 or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. See Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The court may consider other materials in the record 7 not cited to by the parties, but it is not required to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. 8 San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Simmons v. 9 Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010). 10 “The moving party initially bears the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of 11 material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). To meet its burden, “the 12 moving party must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving 13 party’s claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an 14 essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. 15 Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). If the moving party meets this 16 initial burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party “to designate specific facts 17 demonstrating the existence of genuine issues for trial.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 18 376, 387 (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323). The non-moving party must “show more than 19 the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” Id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 20 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). However, the non-moving party is not required to establish a material 21 issue of fact conclusively in its favor; it is sufficient that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to 22 require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. 23 Electrical Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Assoc., 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). 24 The court must apply standards consistent with Rule 56 to determine whether the moving 25 party has demonstrated there to be no genuine issue of material fact and that judgment is 26 appropriate as a matter of law. See Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). 27 “[A] court ruling on a motion for summary judgment may not engage in credibility 28 determinations or the weighing of evidence.” Manley v. Rowley, 847 F.3d 705, 711 (9th Cir. 1 2017) (citation omitted). The evidence must be viewed “in the light most favorable to the 2 nonmoving party” and “all justifiable inferences” must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. 3 Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 772 (9th Cir. 2002); accord Addisu v. Fred 4 Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000). 5 II. Analysis 6 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied because whether the 7 defendants personally violated plaintiff’s due process rights is disputed. See Johnson v. Duffy, 8 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (“A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a 9 constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 10 in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 11 causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.”). It is also disputed whether any supervisory 12 defendant, like Governor Newsom, directed or knew of the alleged violations and failed to 13 prevent them. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“Because vicarious liability is 14 inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official 15 defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”). 16 Defendants each contend that all matters relevant to plaintiff’s parole and good-time 17 credits were determined by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Record 18 Services, not by them. ECF No. 41-1 at 11 ¶ 12; see also ECF Nos. 43-1 at 45 (Declaration of 19 George Bakerjian), 51 (Declaration of Jennifer Shaffer). They have also, both in their discovery 20 responses and opposition, denied that they created or violated any California law relevant to 21 plaintiff’s parole. See ECF No. 39 at 38-39; ECF No. 41 at 13. Plaintiff argues otherwise in his 22 motion for summary judgment, but he has not offered any evidence that overwhelms defendants’ 23 denials. These contradictory attestations amount to a matter of disputed material fact that 24 precludes summary judgment. 25 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 26 1. Defendants’ motion for leave to amend answer, ECF No. 40, is granted. 27 2. The Clerk of Court shall file defendants’ amended answer, found at ECF No. 40 at 8- 28 14, on the docket. It should be title “Amended Answer to Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint” and 1 | will be the operative answer going forward. 2 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 3 | 39, be DENIED. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 6 | being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 7 | the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 8 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 9 | specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 10 | F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 12 | IT ISSO ORDERED. 4 Dated: _ August 20, 2021 q———_ JEREMY D. PETERSON 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28