Oliver v. Madsen et al, No. 5:2021cv00578 - Document 44 (N.D. Cal. 2024)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 38 MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT;GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE; SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON REMAINING CLAIMS. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 3/29/2024.(crr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). A copy of this Order was mailed to Plaintiff.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Oliver v. Madsen et al Doc. 44 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY WAYNE OLIVER, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 H. MADSEN, et al., Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Case No. 21-cv-00578 EJD (PR) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE; SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON REMAINING CLAIMS (Docket No. 38) 13 14 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 15 1983, against officers at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad (“CTF”), where he is 16 currently housed. The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for 17 partial dismissal of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”). Dkt. No. 25. The matter 18 was twice referred for settlement proceedings which were unsuccessful. Dkt. Nos. 30, 31, 19 35, 36. 20 The second amended complaint (“SAC”) is the operative complaint in this action. 21 Dkt. No. 26. With regard to the FAC, the Court granted leave to amend the following 22 claims: (1) the issuance of the September 7, 2019 – RVR by Defendant A. Stephens; and 23 (2) the second mental health referral on December 26, 2019, by Defendant H. Madsen, 24 along with a supervisor liability claim against Defendant Warden Craig Koenig based 25 thereon. Dkt. No. 25 at 34. The SAC alleges the following: (1) an amended retaliation 26 claim against Defendant Stephens; (2) an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants 27 Mora and Madsen for excessive force (which was found to be cognizable in the FAC); and 28 (3) state law claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Dockets.Justia.com 1 Defendants Madsen and S. Mora based on claim 2. Dkt. No. 26 at 16-18. The SAC does 2 not name Defendant Koenig nor contain any allegations against him. Accordingly, 3 Defendant Koenig should be terminated from this action. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 4 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (defendants not named in amended complaint no longer 5 defendants). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure United States District Court Northern District of California 6 7 12(b)(1) for partial dismissal of the SAC on the following grounds: (1) Defendant 8 Stephens is entitled to qualified immunity on the retaliation claim; (2) Plaintiff otherwise 9 fails to state a claim for retaliation against Defendant Stephens; and (3) the negligence and 10 negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are barred for failure to comply with the 11 California Government Claims Act. Dkt. No. 38. Defendants also assert that Plaintiff’s 12 allegations and exhibits regarding other inmates’ confidential claims should be stricken 13 under Rule 12(f). Id. Plaintiff filed a “partial non-opposition” to Defendants’ motions, 14 challenging only Defendants’ argument that his state law claims are barred for failure to 15 comply with the Government Claims Act. Dkt. No. 42. Defendants filed a reply. Dkt. No. 16 43. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ motions are GRANTED. 17 DISCUSSION 18 19 I. Plaintiff’s Allegations 20 A. Retaliation by Defendant Stephens 21 Plaintiff alleges that on August 10, 2019, he assisted his cellmate, Inmate McCurty, 22 with filing an emergency prison rape elimination act (“PREA”) staff complaint. Dkt. No. 23 26 at 3, ¶ 1. Inmate McCurty’s PREA grievance alleged inappropriate conduct by 24 Defendant Madsen during a clothed body search. Id. at 5, ¶ 3. The grievance was filed 25 with the “Hiring Authority,” whom Plaintiff “believes” notified Defendants Stephens and 26 Madsen of the grievance against them. Id., ¶ 4. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were then 27 able to “review and/or get copies of said complaint.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that on August 8 28 and 17, 2019, Defendants Stephens read and processed two of Plaintiff’s CDCR Form 22s 2 1 which he forwarded to Defendant Madsen, and therefore both Defendants were familiar 2 with Plaintiff’s handwriting. Id., ¶ 5. Defendant Madsen read these forms, and processed 3 one on August 1, 2019, and returned the other one back to Plaintiff. Id. United States District Court Northern District of California 4 On September 7, 2019, Plaintiff sought a pass from Defendants Stephen or Madsen 5 for the afternoon law library session. Id. at 6, ¶ 6. Defendants were conducting a cell 6 search on the second tier of G-Wing at the time. Id., ¶ 7. When it was nearly time for the 7 afternoon session, Plaintiff called out to Defendant Stephens from the ground floor. Id., ¶ 8 9. In response, Defendant Stephens shouted down to Plaintiff to, “S[i]t down! S[i]t 9 down!” Id., ¶ 10. When Plaintiff protested, Defendant Stephens said, “S[i]t down at the 10 table that’s a direct order [sic]!” Id., ¶ 12. Plaintiff first ignored the order but eventually 11 sat down at the table a few minutes later. Id., ¶ 13. 12 On the same day, Defendant Stephens wrote Plaintiff a “false serious rules violation 13 report (RVR) Log No. 0690817.” Id., ¶ 15. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did so in 14 retaliation for Plaintiff assisting Inmate McCurty with his PREA grievance against 15 Defendant Madsen. Id. The RVR charged Plaintiff with “harassment of another person” 16 based on his conduct towards Defendant Stephens while she conducted a cell search that 17 afternoon. Dkt. No. 26-1 at 16. Specifically, Defendant Stephens described Plaintiff 18 “staring at [her] with a lewd and lascivious unsettling creepy smile” and continuing to 19 “leer at [her] in an unpleasant and lustful way that was uncomfortable while maintaining a 20 smirk on his face.” Id. When she tried to block his view by closing the cell door halfway, 21 Plaintiff moved so as to maintain a clear view of Defendant Stephens and continued 22 “leering… and licking his lips while staring” at Defendant conducting the cell search. Id. 23 Defendant Stephens reported Plaintiff’s sexual harassment/misconduct to her partner and 24 the adjacent housing unit officer whom she asked to escort Plaintiff to a holding cell while 25 she completed the cell search. Id. Plaintiff claims these allegations were “false and 26 misleading.” Dkt. No. 26 at 7, ¶ 16. He also asserts that Defendant Madsen was with 27 Defendant Stephens at the time and did not submit any additional supplemental report to 28 corroborate Defendant Stephens’ allegations. Id. at 26, ¶ 20. 3 Plaintiff claims that on September 25, 2019, Defendant Stephens approached 1 2 Plaintiff and stated, “Now that’s how you file a mother f*ckin sexual harassment claim” 3 and walked away. Id. at 8, ¶ 18. Plaintiff claims Defendant Stephens was alluding to the 4 PREA grievance he helped Inmate McCurty file. Id., ¶ 19. Plaintiff called Defendant 5 Stephens as a witness at the disciplinary hearing for the RVR on October 9, 2019. Id. at 9, 6 ¶ 21. When Plaintiff asked Defendant Stephens whether he had demonstrated any type of 7 sexual behavior towards her prior to the date of the RVR, Defendant answered, “no.” Id. 8 Plaintiff was found guilty as charged and sanctioned with a thirty-day credit loss. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Stephens knew that the false RVR would have an United States District Court Northern District of California 9 10 adverse effect on Plaintiff’s upcoming parole suitability hearing in February 2023, as 11 Plaintiff would have to show that he was disciplinary-free for five years prior to the 12 hearing. Id. at 10, ¶ 24. He alleges that Defendant Stephens’ actions did not advance any 13 legitimate correctional goal because the RVR was false. Id., ¶ 26. Plaintiff alleges that 14 during 2019-2020, Defendants Stephens, Madsen, and Mora engaged in misconduct that 15 was “ongoing, wide-spread, [and] pervasive.” Id., ¶ 27.1 16 B. 17 Plaintiff claims that on September 7, 2019, Defendant Mora arrived at G-Wing in 18 Claims Against Defendants Madsen and Mora response to Defendant Stephens’ request for another officer. Dkt. No. 26 at 14, ¶ 48. Defendant Mora ordered Plaintiff to turn around and put his hands behind his back. 19 20 Id. at 12, ¶ 28. Plaintiff advised Defendant Mora that he had a “‘special cuffing’ 21 restriction chrono” which meant he had to be cuffed in waist chains. Id. Defendant 22 Madsen arrived and whispered in Defendant Mora’s ear. Id., ¶ 29. Defendant Mora told 23 Plaintiff, “You’ll be alright!” and took Plaintiff’s cane. Id. at 12-13, ¶¶ 31, 32. Defendant 24 Madsen told Mora, “Oliver is an asshole and like[s] to write 602s (grievances) against us.” 25 Id., ¶ 33. As Defendant Mora escorted Plaintiff out of G-Wing, Plaintiff cried out about 26 “experiencing excruciating pain in his shoulder and across his upper shoulders.” Id., ¶ 34. 27 28 1 Plaintiff alleges various instances of misconduct by Defendants against other inmates. Dkt. No. 26 at 10-12. Defendants move to strike these allegations under Rule 12(f). 4 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 Defendant Mora stated, “You will be alright we’re just going to the Facility Program 2 Office [sic].” Id., ¶ 35. Plaintiff alleges that this distance was approximately the distance 3 of a football field. Id., ¶ 36. Plaintiff had difficulty walking without his cane and had to 4 stop three to four times. Id., ¶ 37. Although Plaintiff was wearing his ADA vest, 5 Defendants Mora and Madsen refused to call for an ADA wheelchair. Id., ¶¶ 38, 39. 6 Plaintiff claims Defendants Madsen and Mora were aware of his housing and cuffing 7 restrictions based on past encounters, as well as his shoulder and back injuries of which he 8 had made them aware during numerous clothed body searches. Id. at 13-14, ¶ 41, 42. 9 Once they arrived, Defendant Mora placed Plaintiff in holding cell #4 and refused 10 to tell Plaintiff the reason for placing him in restraints. Id. at 14, ¶ 42. Plaintiff was then 11 ordered to strip down naked and hand his clothes and shoes to the officer; he complied. 12 Id., ¶ 43. When Plaintiff inquired why he was brought to the holding cell, Officer A. 13 Martinez and Sgt. M. Magallow were unaware of the reason. Id., ¶¶ 44-46. A few minutes 14 later, Plaintiff received back his cane and was returned to his wing. Id., ¶ 47. 15 Plaintiff claims Defendant Mora conspired with Defendant Madsen to handcuff 16 Plaintiff and then have him walk to the Office, “to intentionally inflict pain to Plaintiff and 17 cause harm to [him] and teach [him] a lesson for filing grievances against Defendants 18 Madsen and Stephens.” Id., ¶ 49. Plaintiff claims Defendants’ actions aggravated his pre- 19 existing shoulder, hip, and left leg injuries, requiring Plaintiff to take pain medication and 20 injections. Id. at 15, ¶ 50. He claims Defendants’ use of excessive force did not 21 reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal, and it was “malicious and sadistic and 22 intended to deliberate cause[] harm to Plaintiff.” Id., ¶¶ 51, 52. 23 Plaintiff claims that his tort claims were filed in the Government Claims Program 24 against Defendants mora and Madsen. Dkt. No. 26 at 15, ¶ 53. The claims were rejected, 25 and Plaintiff was advised that no determination was made regarding the merits of the 26 claims which involved complex issues best determined by the courts. Id. at 15-16, ¶ 53. 27 28 5 1 United States District Court Northern District of California 2 II. Motion to Dismiss A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 3 pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and a complaint that fails to do so is 4 subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to 5 dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on 6 its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility” 7 standard requires the plaintiff to allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer possibility 8 that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 9 Dismissal for failure to state a claim is a ruling on a question of law. See Parks School of 10 Business, Inc., v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1483 (9th Cir. 1995). “The issue is not 11 whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to 12 support his claim.” Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). 13 Allegations of fact in the complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most 14 favorable to the non-moving party. See Symington, 51 F.3d at 1484. The court may 15 consider “‘allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and 16 matters properly subject to judicial notice.’” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th 17 Cir. 2012) (internal citation omitted). 18 “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need 19 detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds of his 20 ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 21 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do…. Factual allegations must be 22 enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 23 A motion to dismiss should be granted if the complaint does not proffer “enough facts to 24 state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. To state a claim that is 25 plausible on its face, a plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the 26 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 27 U.S. at 678 (finding under Twombly and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 that complainant-detainee in a Bivens action failed to plead sufficient facts “plausibly 6 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 showing” that top federal officials “purposely adopted a policy of classifying post- 2 September-11 detainees as ‘of high interest’ because of their race, religion, or national 3 origin” over more likely and non-discriminatory explanations). From these decisions, the 4 following “two principles” arise: “First to be entitled to the presumption of truth, 5 allegations in a complaint or counterclaim may not simply recite the elements of a cause of 6 action but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to 7 enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively. Second, the factual allegations that 8 are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to 9 require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued 10 litigation.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011); see, e.g., AE v. County of 11 Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012) (applying Starr standard to pleading policy or 12 custom for claims against local government entities); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 13 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 1996) (a complaint must make clear “who is being sued, for what 14 relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”). 15 A pro se pleading must be liberally construed and, “however inartfully pleaded, 16 must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” The 17 Supreme Court reminded us in Twombly and has reminded us since. See Erickson v. 18 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Because Iqbal incorporated the Twombly pleading 19 standard and Twombly did not alter courts’ treatment of pro se filings, we continue to 20 construe pro se filings liberally, especially where the plaintiff is a pro se prisoner in a civil 21 rights matter. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 22 23 Allegations of fact in the complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Symington, 51 F.3d at 1484. 24 A. Retaliation 25 Defendants first assert that qualified immunity protects Defendant Stephens from 26 Plaintiff’s retaliation claim because Plaintiff’s assistance of another inmate to file a 27 grievance cannot support such a claim. Dkt. No. 38 at 14. Plaintiff states that he does not 28 oppose the motion to dismiss this claim against Defendant Stephens. Dkt. No. 42 at 2. 7 1 United States District Court Northern District of California 2 Defendants assert in reply that the claim should be dismissed. Dkt. No. 43 at 2. The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 3 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 4 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. 5 Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The rule of “qualified immunity protects ‘all but the 6 plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 7 194, 202 (2001) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). Defendants can 8 have a reasonable, but mistaken, belief about the facts or about what the law requires in 9 any given situation. Id. at 205. A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must 10 determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right 11 and whether such right was clearly established such that it would be clear to a reasonable 12 officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted. See Pearson v. 13 Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (overruling the sequence of the two-part test that 14 required determining a deprivation first and then deciding whether such right was clearly 15 established, as required by Saucier). The court may exercise its discretion in deciding 16 which prong to address first, in light of the particular circumstances of each case. Id. at 17 236 (noting that while the Saucier sequence is often appropriate and beneficial, it is no 18 longer mandatory). When qualified immunity is raised in a motion to dismiss, a court 19 must decide “whether the facts alleged in the complaint, assumed to be true, yield the 20 conclusion that the defendant is entitled to immunity.” Butler v. San Diego District 21 Attorney’s Office, 370 F.3d 956, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2004). 22 “[A] right is clearly established only if its contours are sufficiently clear that ‘a 23 reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ In other 24 words, ‘existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question 25 beyond debate.’” Carroll v. Carman, 574 U.S. 13, 16 (2014) (citations omitted) (law not 26 clearly established whether officer may conduct a ‘knock and talk’ at any entrance to a 27 home that is open to visitors, rather than only the front door); accord Browning v. Vernon, 28 44 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir. 1995) (“the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear so 8 1 that a reasonable official would know that his conduct violates that right”). Ultimately, 2 however, the dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is 3 whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the 4 situation he confronted. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202. A court determining whether a right 5 was clearly established looks to “Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit law existing at the time 6 of the alleged act.” Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise, Idaho, 623 F.3d 945, 967 7 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 936 (9th Cir. 1996)). In the 8 absence of binding precedent, the court should look to all available decisional law, 9 including the law of other circuits and district courts. See id. After carefully reviewing the papers, the Court finds that Defendant Stephens is United States District Court Northern District of California 10 11 entitled to qualified immunity on the retaliation claim against him. Assuming Defendant 12 Stephens did retaliate against Plaintiff for assisting another inmate to file a grievance, it 13 cannot be said that it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that such conduct was 14 unlawful. Prisoners do not have a special right to provide inmates with legal advice or 15 assistance, cloaked with enhanced First Amendment protection; such speech may be 16 regulated in the same manner as other inmate speech may be regulated under the Turner2 17 standard. Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 231 (2001); see also Gibbs v. Hopkins, 10 F.3d 18 373, 378 (6th Cir. 1993) (decision noted in Shaw, 532 U.S. at 227-28); Gassler v. Rayl, 19 862 F.2d 706, 707-08 (8th Cir. 1988) (decision noted in Shaw, 532 U.S. at 228). Prisons 20 have legitimate penological reasons for discouraging or prohibiting jailhouse lawyering 21 because “it is indisputable that inmate law clerks are sometimes a menace to prison 22 discipline and that prisoners have an acknowledged propensity to abuse both the giving 23 and the seeking of legal advice.” Shaw, 532 U.S. at 231 (internal quotation marks, ellipsis 24 and brackets omitted). In light this precedent and the legitimate concerns it acknowledges, 25 it cannot be said that there existed a clearly established right for prisoners to assist other 26 27 28 2 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987) (prison regulations that infringe a prisoner’s constitutional right are valid so long as they are “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests”). 9 1 prisoners in exercising their First Amendment rights without retaliation such that a 2 reasonable officer would have understood that he was violating that right in the 3 circumstances faced by Defendant Stephens. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202. 4 Based on the foregoing, Defendant Stephens is entitled to qualified immunity on 5 this claim because a reasonable officer in her position would have not been on notice of 6 clearly established law holding that Plaintiff could not be retaliated against for assisting 7 another inmate in filing grievances. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss this 8 claim based on qualified immunity should be granted. It is therefore unnecessary to 9 address Defendants’ alternative argument that Plaintiff fails to state a retaliation claim United States District Court Northern District of California 10 because his allegations are insufficient. Dkt. No. 38 at 15-20. 11 B. State Law Claims 12 Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s state law claims for negligence and negligent 13 infliction of emotional distress against Defendants Mora and Madsen based on their 14 conduct during their escort of Plaintiff to the holding cell are barred for failure to comply 15 with the Government Claims Act. Dkt. No. 38 at 20. In support, Defendants submit the 16 declaration of the Government Claims Program Custodian of Records, A. Ramos, who 17 states that Plaintiff never submitted a government claim related to the alleged events on 18 September 7, 2019. Dkt. No. 38 at 21; Dkt. No. 38-2 at 2. In opposition, Plaintiff 19 contends that he did present his claims to the Government Claims Program and submits 20 evidence in support. Dkt. No. 42. In reply, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s declaration 21 and exhibits are outside the pleadings and constitute extrinsic evidence which should be 22 excluded. Dkt. No. 43 at 2. Even if the Court were to consider the evidence, Defendants 23 assert that the evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff failed to timely file his initial complaint 24 within the six-month statute of limitations from the date his alleged government claim was 25 rejected. Id. at 3. 26 Assuming that Plaintiff’s evidence in opposition is admissible, the evidence clearly 27 shows that he failed to timely file suit under state law. California Government Code 28 section 945.6(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, “any suit brought against a public entity on a 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented… must be commenced… not 2 later than six months after the date such [written] notice is personal delivered or deposited 3 in the mail.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.6(a); see also Bladen v. CDCR, et al., Case No. 5”20- 4 cv-0878-DSF (GJS), 2021 WL 6751909, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021). This six-month 5 statute of limitations is not tolled for an additional six months under section 945.6(b) by 6 virtue of a plaintiff’s imprisonment. See Moore v. Twomey, 120Cal.App.4th 91, 914, n.2 7 (2004). It appears that Plaintiff may have submitted a government claim with the wrong 8 incident date (September 21, 2019), (Dkt. No. 42 at 10), which accounts for the 9 discrepancy with the Custodian of Records’ declaration that no claim was located 10 regarding a September 7, 2019 incident. Dkt. No. 38-2 at 2. This discrepancy is 11 ultimately immaterial because Plaintiff’s evidence, taken as true, indicates that he failed to 12 timely file his complaint within six months of the rejection of the government claim. 13 Plaintiff states that the government claim was rejected on March 23, 2020. Dkt. No. 42 at 14 3, 6. That same rejection notice advised Plaintiff that he “had six (6) months to file a court 15 action from the date of that notice.” Id. at 23. That means Plaintiff had until September 16 23, 2020, to file at timely action. However, Plaintiff did not initiate this action until 17 several months after the limitations period had already expired: the verification was signed 18 on December 25, 2020, which was three months after the limitations period expired, Dkt. 19 No. 1 at 33-34, and the complaint was received on January 25, 2021, another month later, 20 Dkt. No. 182 at 1. Accordingly, these state law claims are barred as untimely and must be 21 dismissed. 22 III. Motion to Strike 23 Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s allegations under paragraph 27 of the SAC 24 involving other inmates and the attached Exhibits E-H containing confidential grievances, 25 grievance decisions, and a declaration from an inmate in another inmate’s case should be 26 stricken from the SAC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) as immaterial and 27 scandalous. Dkt. No. 38 at 21. Defendants rely on sections 3370(b) and 3450(e) of Title 28 15, which prohibit an inmate from possessing another inmate’s personal or confidential 11 1 2 material. Id. at 21-22. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 42 at 2. The Court finds that the challenged material involving the confidential claims of 3 other inmates is clearly immaterial to Plaintiff’s remaining Eighth Amendment claim 4 against Defendants Mora and Madsen for the alleged use of excessive force on September 5 7, 2019. Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants’ motion to strike these portions from the 6 SAC should be granted. 7 CONCLUSION 8 9 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the retaliation claim against Defendant 11 Stephens and the state law claims against Defendants Mora and Madsen is GRANTED. 12 Dkt. No. 38. The retaliation claim against Defendant Stephens is DISMISSED with 13 prejudice as barred by qualified immunity. The state law claims of negligence and 14 negligent infliction of emotion distress are DISMISSED with prejudice as time barred. 15 Defendants’ motion to strike paragraph 27 and Exhibits E-H of the SAC is 16 17 GRANTED. This matter shall proceed on the remaining Eighth Amendment claim for excessive 18 force against Defendants Mora and Madsen. The Clerk shall terminate all other 19 Defendants from this action because there remain no claims against them. 20 2. No later than fifty-six (56) days from the date this order is filed, 21 Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion on the 22 remaining claim or file notice indicating that the Eighth Amendment claim against them 23 cannot be resolved by such a motion. 24 In the alternative, if the parties are amenable to settlement proceedings on this 25 remaining claim, they may file a stipulation for a referral to the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement 26 Program no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is filed. 27 28 3. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from 12 1 2 3 the date Defendants’ motion is filed. 4. Defendants shall file a reply no later than fourteen (14) days after the date on which Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 4 5. All other relevant portions of the Court’s Order of Service, ECF No. 10, shall 5 remain in effect. 6 This order terminates Docket No. 38. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: March 29, 2024 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
