Knickerbocker v. United States Department of Interior, Death Valley National Park, National Park Service ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISSAM ELIE KNICKERBOCKER, No. 1:16-cv-01811-DAD-JLT 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., (Doc. No. 110 at 13 n.5) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 24, 2020, the court issued an order granting the motion for summary judgment 18 filed by defendants United States of America, Park Service Ranger Nicole Gruver, and Park 19 Service Ranger Brian Drew (collectively, “defendants”). (Doc. No. 110.) The court found that 20 plaintiff’s claims—that the rangers used excessive force in handcuffing him and that they 21 unlawfully seized him in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, as well as his related state 22 law claims—failed as a matter of law. (See id. at 6–20.) In so holding, the court found that 23 plaintiff’s claims were “blatantly contradicted by the body camera video footage before the court 24 on summary judgment.” (Id. at 12.) 25 In an earlier order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, the court 26 had “strongly encouraged [plaintiff’s counsel] to view the video evidence with plaintiff to 27 determine whether [he] can proceed with this case in good faith,” and informed plaintiff’s counsel 28 that “[p]ursuing litigation without evidentiary support for the allegations made may result in the 1 imposition of sanctions.” (Doc. No. 53 at 9 n.3.) Accordingly, the March 24, 2020 order 2 granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment also ordered plaintiff’s counsel “to show 3 cause . . . why sanctions should not be imposed given the clear lack of evidentiary support 4 for plaintiff’s allegations and the claims based thereon.” (Doc. No. 110 at 13 n.5.) 5 Specifically, the order to show cause stated: 6 If plaintiff’s counsel takes the position that the video footage does not discredit plaintiff’s version of the facts, he is directed to provide 7 the court with exact timestamps from the body camera footage which purportedly show that: (1) “[t]he rangers forced Plaintiff’s hands 8 behind his back”; (2) plaintiff “complain[ed] of pain for approximately a full hour; and (3) “Plaintiff had no choice but to 9 comply” with the rangers’ request for his identification, because he was coerced into so doing. 10 11 (Id.) 12 On April 28, 2020, plaintiff’s counsel responded to the court’s March 24, 2020 order to 13 show cause. (Doc. No. 120.) Therein, counsel argues that the imposition of sanctions is not 14 warranted because he did not pursue plaintiff’s claims without evidentiary support for the 15 allegations. (Id. at 3.) Despite counsel’s position that “[he] simply did not see the line drawn in 16 the same place that the Court did” (id. at 12), the court remains completely convinced that 17 “[plaintiff’s] version of events is so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could 18 [] believe[] him.” (Doc. No. 110 at 12–13) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)). 19 Nevertheless, the court will exercise its discretion and elect not to impose sanctions 20 against counsel here. In his opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment, plaintiff’s 21 counsel argued that “[t]he rangers forced Plaintiff’s hands behind his back after he continued to 22 complain of pain . . ..” (Doc. No. 93 at 14.) In response to the pending order to show cause, 23 plaintiff’s counsel creatively suggests that his use of the word “forced” in this context is at least 24 arguably open to interpretation: 25 Plaintiff has never maintained that the rangers grabbed his arms and forced them behind his back when they first handcuffed him. 26 Instead, Plaintiff’s position has always been that the rangers forced his hands to continue to be handcuffed behind his back without any 27 further adjustment or using a different method of detainment when Plaintiff continued to be in pain until approximately one hour later 28 when Ranger Russell arrived and placed a belly chain on Plaintiff. 4:40 UV VLOLL MAR VRP tet POU Vee OY VI 1 | (Doc. No. 120 at 5.) In this way, counsel now suggests that by using the word “forced” in this 2 || context, he was merely describing that plaintiff remained handcuffed behind his back despite 3 | complaining about pain. The word counsel chose to use generally has a much different meaning, 4 | one more consistent with the nature of plaintiff's allegations underlying this action. See Forced, 5 | Merriam-Webster.com (Apr. 21, 2020) (“done or produced with effort, exertions, or pressure’’). 6 | Though not convinced that counsel’s word choice here was entirely innocent, as he now insists, 7 | the court acknowledges that it is conceivable it was not made in bad faith or with intent to 8 | deceive. Based on the explanation provided by counsel in response to the order to show cause, 9 | the court also finds that plaintiff's allegations and argument that he complained of pain for 10 || approximately a full hour and that he was coerced into providing his identification were not 11 obviously made or advanced in bad faith. Accordingly, here, too, the court will exercise its 12 | discretion in not imposing sanctions. 13 Finally, the court notes that the analysis set forth in its order granting defendant’s motion 14 | for summary judgment is completely unaffected by this order. 15 For the reasons set forth above, 16 1. The March 24, 2020 order to show cause (Doc. No. 110 at 13 n.5) is hereby 17 discharged; and 18 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _-May 1, 2020 DL A. Done 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28