(PC) Thomas v. Ali ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON LATRELL THOMAS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00864-TLN-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL, REQUEST FOR 14 M. ALI, et al., CLARIFICATION, REQUESTS FOR COURT ASSISTANCE, AND MOTIONS TO 15 Defendants. COMPEL 16 ECF Nos. 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 118, & 119 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18 THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED 19 ECF No. 116 20 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 21 DAYS 22 Pending are several motions filed by plaintiff.1 For the reasons stated hereafter, I deny all 23 of plaintiff’s motions, save for the motion for summary judgment. I recommend that that motion 24 be denied as well, and I submit that recommendation to the district judge. 25 26 27 28 1 I previously warned plaintiff that such flurries of motions would slow this litigation. 1 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and for Sanctions 2 Plaintiff’s first motion concerns video footage that he requested and that was shown to 3 him by CDCR officials. ECF No. 110 at 1-2. He claims that the footage was edited to reduce the 4 field of view and implies that the complete footage is being purposefully hidden from him. ECF 5 No. Id. He requests that I sanction defendants for “sabotaging” the footage. Id. at 3. Plaintiff 6 also argues that I should reconsider my previous denials of his requests for counsel insofar as an 7 attorney could possess the unedited footage that CDCR has declined to provide to him. Id. at 3-5. 8 This motion is denied. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that defendants have hidden 9 footage from him or that other, relevant footage exists, and I decline to impose discovery 10 sanctions or to appoint counsel based on his contentions. I will also deny plaintiff’s request that 11 defendants lodge video evidence with the court, ECF No. 119, given that this request largely 12 restates plaintiff’s claims in his first motion. 13 Defendants have already filed a response to these claims of “editing,” stating that the only 14 edit made was to cut the video to the period at issue, from 3:30 to 5:30 pm when the use-of-force 15 incident occurred. ECF No. 122 at 2. Any failure to capture certain events is attributable to the 16 limitations of the cameras, which defendants state do not capture every portion of the building. 17 Id. I cannot compel defendants to produce what they do not possess. Based on defendants’ 18 response and the sworn affidavit of the investigative officer that they have submitted, I consider 19 this issue resolved. Thus, I will also deny plaintiff’s other motions that concern the production of 20 the “unedited” footage. ECF Nos. 112, 115, & 119. 21 Motion to Compel a Response 22 Plaintiff has filed a motion asking after the status of his motion to compel, ECF No. 103. 23 As he notes in his motion, I directed defendants to file a response to that motion, ECF No. 106, 24 and they did so, ECF No. 109. He claims that he never received the opposition defendants filed 25 and is apparently under the mistaken impression that they failed to comply with my order. ECF 26 No. 113 at 1. The motion to compel at issue has already been denied and this motion will be 27 denied as moot. 28 1 Motion for Order that Facts or Genuineness be Taken as Established 2 This unusually titled motion alleges that plaintiff served requests for admission on 3 defendants in December 2023 and never received a response. ECF No. 117. Plaintiff also served 4 additional interrogatories and requests for production alongside those requests for admission, and 5 allegedly received no response to those, either. Id. at 1-2. The motion, as worded, appears to ask 6 only that I deem the requests for admission admitted, however. Id. Defendants have not filed a 7 response. I will order them to do so and defer ruling on it until it is fully briefed. 8 Motion to Compel 9 Plaintiff’s first motion to compel, ECF No. 118, argues that defendant Galilio failed to 10 respond adequately to his interrogatories and requests for production. Id. at 1-2. He has failed to 11 carry his burden and the motion to compel will be denied. Rather than describing how each of the 12 responses is inadequate, plaintiff broadly argues that Galilio’s responses are “improper” and that 13 defendant has failed to do his due diligence. Id. at 2. Plaintiff broadly references CDCR policy 14 and claims that this indicates that defendants do have evidence that they are withholding in an 15 attempt to cover-up their misconduct. Id. To succeed on a motion to compel, the moving party 16 must explain why each disputed response is inadequate or unjustified. See Waterbury v. Scribner, 17 No. 1:05-cv-0764-OWW-DLB (PC), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53142, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 18 2008) (“[A]t a minimum, as the moving party plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court of 19 which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and, for each disputed response, 20 why defendant’s objection is not justified.”). This motion is denied. 21 Motion for Summary Judgment 22 Summary judgment is appropriate where there is “no genuine dispute as to any material 23 fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Washington 24 Mutual Inc. v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). I recommend that plaintiff’s 25 motion for summary judgment be denied because genuine disputes of material facts persist. This 26 is not the first time plaintiff has moved for summary judgment, ECF No. 66, and I recommended 27 that the previous motion be denied based on the existence of genuine disputes of fact as to 28 whether defendants used excessive force against him in 2019, ECF No. 99. Those 1 recommendations were adopted. ECF No. 102. As before, plaintiff’s motion does not contain 2 sufficient argument or evidence to establish that his version of the facts is the only plausible ones. 3 Competing narratives exist as to the use of force in 2019 and whether defendants retaliated 4 against him in late 2019 and early 2020. No “smoking gun” has surfaced between his last motion 5 for summary judgment and the current one, and I see no reason to reconsider my previous 6 analysis. And defendants’ opposition, ECF No. 124, adequately establishes the plausibility of 7 their own, competing versions of events. This motion should be denied. 8 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 110, request for clarification, ECF 10 No. 111, request for assistance, ECF No. 112, motion to compel, ECF No. 113, motion requesting 11 assistance, ECF No. 115, and motions to compel, ECF Nos. 118 & 119, are all DENIED. 12 2. Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff’s motion for order, ECF No. 117, 13 within twenty-one days of this order’s entry. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, is due seven days after the 14 response. I will rule on that motion once it is fully briefed. 15 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 16 116, be DENIED. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 19 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 20 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 21 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 22 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 23 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 24 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 25 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ June 7, 2024 Q_——. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28