Rhodes v. Ford ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 KAVIN MAURICE RHODES, Case No. 20-cv-03128-PJH 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 10 D. FORD, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 128 Defendants. 11 12 13 14 This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 15 1983. Defendant has filed a motion for leave to file a second summary judgment motion. 16 See Dkt. 128. Defendant’s first summary judgment motion was granted in part and 17 denied in part, and the case proceeded on plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant 18 Ford regarding an incident on January 16, 2020. Specifically, the court concluded that 19 plaintiff had raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ford was made aware 20 that he was the subject of plaintiff’s grievance and issued a false Rules Violation Report 21 (“RVR”) as retaliation. See Dkt. 103. 22 In particular, the court cited an argument made in plaintiff’s opposition brief, that 23 defendant Ford was present in the law library on January 14, 2020, at the same time that 24 plaintiff was being interviewed about the grievance that he had filed against Ford. See 25 Dkt. 103 at 5 (citing Dkt. 93 at 4). Defendant now seeks to file a second summary 26 judgment motion to present evidence that defendant Ford was not at work, and thus, not 27 in the law library, on January 14, 2020. See Dkt. 128, 129. Defendant also seeks to 1 “[D]istrict courts have discretion to entertain successive motions for summary 2 judgment.” Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010). Although a 3 court “retain[s] discretion to ‘weed out frivolous or simply repetitive motions,’” the filing of 4 a second motion for summary judgment can encourage the efficient resolution of 5 lawsuits. Id. (quoting Knox v. Southwest Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1997)). 6 In this instance, defendant’s proposed second motion for summary judgment 7 would not be frivolous or simply repetitive. Defendant’s first motion for summary 8 judgment argued that “plaintiff cannot establish with evidence that Ford’s adverse action 9 taken against plaintiff on January 16, 2020 stemmed from a retaliatory motive.” Dkt. 87 10 at 9. In his opposition brief, plaintiff argued for the first time that he was interviewed 11 about his grievance in the law library on January 14, 2020, in “Ford’s direct presence,” 12 thus suggesting that Ford was aware of plaintiff’s grievance and had motive to retaliate. 13 Dkt. 93 at 4. Based in large part on plaintiff’s argument made in his opposition brief, the 14 court concluded that “[i]f plaintiff’s facts are true and Ford was made aware a few days 15 before that he was the subject of an inmate appeal and Ford confiscated plaintiffs’ legal 16 documents and had plaintiff written up for a RVR due to the inmate appeal, then a jury 17 could conclude there was a constitutional violation.” Dkt. 103 at 5. On that basis, the 18 court denied summary judgment in part as to defendant Ford. 19 Defendant now argues that he “can present newly developed objective evidence 20 that he was not present in the law library on January 14, 2020.” Dkt. 128 at 2. If 21 defendant’s evidence does indeed prove what defendant claims, it would be squarely 22 relevant to plaintiff’s retaliation claim. As the court stated in its previous order, “[i]f Ford 23 was unaware of the inmate appeal and plaintiff received the RVR for his behavior, then 24 there was no constitutional violation.” Dkt. 103 at 6. 25 However, plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for leave shows that he may 26 also have new evidence that demonstrates Ford’s awareness of plaintiff’s grievance. 27 Specifically, plaintiff cites the written decisions regarding plaintiff’s grievance and argues 1 grievance, and that the interview occurred on or before January 16, 2020. See Dkt. 2 131-1, ¶¶ 8, 9, see also Dkt. 131-1, Ex. 3, 4. 3 Having considered the new evidence presented by both plaintiff and defendant, 4 the court concludes that a second summary judgment motion would not be “frivolous or 5 simply repetitive,” and thus GRANTS in part defendant’s motion for leave. Both parties 6 shall have the opportunity to present their evidence regarding Ford’s knowledge of 7 plaintiff having filed a grievance against him. 8 However, to the extent that defendant also seeks to argue that plaintiff suffered no 9 harm as a result of the RVR, the court concludes that a second summary judgment 10 motion on this issue is not warranted. First, in contrast to the issue of Ford’s awareness, 11 no new arguments on this issue were raised by plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s first 12 summary judgment motion. Second, plaintiff alleges in his original complaint not only that 13 he was harmed by the RVR, but also by having his legal materials wrongfully confiscated, 14 which, if proven, would be sufficient by itself to support a constitutional violation. See 15 Dkt. 1 at 6; see also Dkt. 97 at 5, Dkt. 123 at ¶¶ 12-15. Defendant’s proposed second 16 summary judgment motion does not address the allegation that plaintiff’s legal materials 17 were confiscated. 18 Overall, the court concludes that a second summary judgment motion on the issue 19 of whether plaintiff suffered any harm would address issues that could have been 20 addressed during the first summary judgment motion, and thus, no judicial economy or 21 efficiency would be gained by allowing such a motion to go forward. Thus, defendant’s 22 motion for leave is DENIED to the extent that it seeks to argue that plaintiff suffered no 23 harm. 24 As stated above, defendant’s motion for leave to file a second summary judgment 25 motion (Dkt. 128) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court will allow 26 defendant to file a summary judgment motion on the issue of defendant Ford’s 27 awareness of plaintiff having filed a grievance against him, including whether Ford 1 interview with J. Cummings about plaintiff’s grievance. Because the latter argument was 2 raised for the first time in plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for leave, the court 3 will allow defendant an opportunity to file a revised summary judgment motion to address 4 the issue of the J. Cummings interview. Thus, the proposed second summary judgment 5 motion that has already been filed (Dkt. 129) is STRICKEN, and defendant shall file a 6 revised second summary judgment motion no later than March 21, 2024. The revised 7 motion shall remove the portion of the motion relating to the issue of whether plaintiff 8 suffered any harm. 9 Plaintiff shall then have until April 4, 2024 to file an opposition, and defendant 10 shall have until April 11, 2024 to file a reply. After briefing is complete, the court will set 11 a hearing if necessary. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: March 14, 2024 15 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27