Morales v. Cate et al
Filing
37
ORDER Granting 17 Motion to Reinstate Defamation Claim; Granting 27 Motion to Stay. Defendants motion to stay proceedings, (Docket No. 27), in federal court is GRANTED. Further proceedings in this Court are STAYED pending the outcome of the pr oceedings in the state court. Defendants shall inform the Court within fifteen (15) days of the date any judgment is rendered in the state courts or those proceedings are otherwise resolved. At that time, the stay will be lifted unless either party shows cause for extending the stay pending any state court appeal. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/7/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JOSE LUIS MORALES,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
14
MATHEW CATE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
No. C 11-052 1 EJD (PR)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY; GRANTING MOTION TO
REINSTATE DEFAMATION CLAIM
(Docket Nos. 17 & 27)
16
Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant civil rights action in pro se pursuant
17
18
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pelican Bay State Prison (‘PBSP”) officials for
19
unconstitutional acts. Defendants filed a motion to stay this action pending resolution of
20
Plaintiff’s state habeas actions. (Docket No. 27, (“Mot.”).) Plaintiff filed opposition, and
21
Defendants filed a reply.
22
DISCUSSION
23
24
A.
Motion to Stay
25
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that PBSP officials violated his right to due
26
process when they validated him as an active prison gang member in 2011. (Compl. at 6.)
27
Plaintiff was validated as an associate of the Mexican Mafia prison gang on February 24,
28
2011. Plaintiff also claims that the validation was “in conspiracy to retaliate against
Order Granting Stay; Reinstating Claim
05211Morales_stay.wpd
1
1
Plaintiff for his legal activities” and that Defendants retaliated against him for his legal
2
activities, in violation of his First Amendment rights. (Id. at 9, 11.) Lastly, Plaintiff
3
claims that supervisors are liable for their subordinates’ unconstitutional acts. (Id. at13.)
4
Liberally construed, the Court found Plaintiff stated cognizable claims under § 1983.
Defendants have filed a motion to stay this action pending resolution of Plaintiff’s
5
6
state habeas action, contending that the action involves the same facts and legal theories
7
as the instant action.1 (Mot. at 1.) On January 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a state habeas
8
petition in Del Norte County Superior Court, claiming that his February 2011 gang
9
validation violated his due process rights and was motivated by retaliation for his legal
10
activities. (Req. Jud. Not., Ex. A.) On March 5, 2012, the state court ordered the
11
respondent to informally respond to the petition, to specifically address Plaintiff’s
12
allegation that there is no evidence of a “direct link” used in his gang validation. (Id., Ex.
13
B.) On March 15, 2012, the California Attorney General’s office served an informal
14
response on the state’s behalf. (Id., Ex. C.) On March 28, 2012, Plaintiff served an
15
informal reply. (Id., Ex. D.) On May 4, 2012, the state court requested additional
16
information from the respondent on the issue of whether there is evidence of a “direct
17
link.” (Id., Ex. E.)
18
Defendants assert that by the time they received notice of the instant federal action
19
by this Court’s Order of Service filed on April 2, 2012, Plaintiff’s state habeas action was
20
well underway. Defendants first argue that the instant action should be stayed in
21
deference to the pending, parallel state action. Second, they argue that the issue of what
22
constitutes a “direct link” is particularly suited to the California courts. Lastly,
23
Defendants argue that more progress has been made in the state case and that it would be
24
inefficient to allow the federal litigation to proceed. In opposition, Plaintiff argues,
25
among other things, that the state action only involves declaratory relief and does not bar
26
him from seeking damages in this federal action.
27
1
28
The Court grants Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the documents submitted in
support of their motion. Plaintiff’s objections in this regard are without merit.
Order Granting Stay; Reinstating Claim
05211Morales_stay.wpd
2
The Court is persuaded that a stay of the instant federal action is appropriate until
1
2
the pending state action is resolved. See Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1415
3
(1989) (“[A] federal court may stay its proceedings in deference to pending state
4
proceedings”). Although it is true that the type of relief Plaintiff seeks in each action is
5
different, the issues presented are “substantially similar” if not identical: Plaintiff is
6
attacking the same 2011 gang validation on the grounds that it violates due process and
7
that it was based on retaliatory motives. Lastly, allowing this action to proceed would be
8
highly inefficient in light of how far the state matter has progressed.
Furthermore, the Court cannot ignore the potential that res judicata or collateral
9
10
estoppel may bar this action after judgment is rendered in the state court proceedings.
11
Under the Federal Full Faith and Credit Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, “a federal court must
12
give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment
13
under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.” Migra v. Warren City
14
School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984); see Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v.
15
County of Santa Barbara, 604 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (same). A civil rights
16
action under § 1983 may be dismissed as barred by res judicata, for example, if a prior
17
California state court judgment rendered a valid judgment on the merits in favor of a
18
defendant. See Takahashi v. Bd. of Trustees, 783 F.2d 848, 850-51 (9th Cir.) (citing
19
Slater v. Blackwood, 15 Cal.3d 791, 795 (1976)), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1182 (1986).
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for stay is GRANTED. The instant federal
20
21
action will be stayed until final judgment in the state court is rendered.
22
B.
23
Motion to Resinstate State Claim
In its order of service, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s defamation claim for failure
24
to state a cognizable claim. (See Docket No. 6 at 2, citing Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693,
25
701-710 (1976) (recognizing that defamation alone does not state a constitutional claim,
26
even when done under color of state law)). Plaintiff asserts in a “motion to alter
27
judgment” that his defamation claim is cognizable as a “defamation-plus” claim, i.e., as
28
an “injury to reputation... inflicted in connection with a federal protected right.” (Docket
Order Granting Stay; Reinstating Claim
05211Morales_stay.wpd
3
1
2
No. 17 at 2.)
According to the Ninth Circuit, a § 1983 “defamation-plus” claim requires an
3
allegation of injury to a plaintiffs reputation from defamation accompanied by an
4
allegation of injury to a recognizable property or liberty interest. Cooper v. Dupnik, 924
5
F.2d 1520, 1532 (9th Cir. 1991). “There are two ways to state a cognizable § 1983 claim
6
for defamation-plus: (1) allege that the injury to reputation was inflicted in connection
7
with a federally protected right; or (2) allege that the injury to reputation caused the
8
denial of a federally protected right.” Herb Hallman Chevrolet v. Nash-Holmes, 169 F.3d
9
636, 645 (9th Cir. 1999).
10
Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ unconstitutional acts in validating him as an
11
active prison gang member damaged his reputation and his right of access to the courts.
12
(Compl. at 12.) Liberally construed, this claim is sufficient to state a cognizable § 1983
13
claim. See Cooper, 924 F.3d at 1532. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to alter judgment,
14
(Docket No. 17), is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s defamation-plus claim is hereby reinstated.
15
Defendants shall answer with respect to this claim and the other cognizable claims
16
discussed in the Court’s Order of Service in their motion for summary judgment or other
17
dispositive motion after .
18
CONCLUSION
19
20
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
21
1.
Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings, (Docket No. 27), in federal court is
22
GRANTED. Further proceedings in this Court are STAYED pending the outcome of the
23
proceedings in the state court. Defendants shall inform the Court within fifteen (15)
24
days of the date any judgment is rendered in the state courts or those proceedings are
25
otherwise resolved. At that time, the stay will be lifted unless either party shows cause
26
for extending the stay pending any state court appeal.
27
28
2.
Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the defamation claim, (Docket No. 17), is
GRANTED.
Order Granting Stay; Reinstating Claim
05211Morales_stay.wpd
4
1
This order terminates Docket Nos. 17 and 27.
2
3
DATED:
8/3/2012
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Granting Stay; Pending Motions
05211Morales_stay.wpd
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOSE LUIS MORALES,
Case Number: CV11-05211 EJD
Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
MATHEW CATE , et al.,
Defendants.
/
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
8/7/2012
That on
, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the
attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)
hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into
an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
Joseluis Morales P 63392
Corcoran State Prison
P. O. Box 3476
Corcoran, CA 93212
Dated:
8/7/2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
/s/By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
