Sean Ezra Brown v. Carlo A. Spiga, No. 2:2015cv08585 - Document 79 (C.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. IT IS ORDERED that (1) Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted 44 and this action is dismissed without prejudic e pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); (2) Plaintiff's request for a stay is denied; (3) Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment are denied without prejudice as moot 40 - 41 ; and (4) Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is denied 46 . (see order for details) (hr)

Download PDF
Sean Ezra Brown v. Carlo A. Spiga Doc. 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SEAN EZRA BROWN, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 v. CARLO A. SPIGA, Defendant. 15 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CV 15-8585-ODW (AGR) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the complaint, records on 17 file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. 18 Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to 19 which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of 20 the Magistrate Judge. 21 Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, his claims that his defense counsel obstructed 22 justice and conspired with the prosecutor to deprive Petitioner of his constitutional 23 rights in his criminal case are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 24 (See Report at 8 (citing cases).) 25 In his objections, Plaintiff complains about Defendant’s responses to discovery. 26 Plaintiff complains that Defendant has withheld Plaintiff’s trial transcripts and court 27 records in an attempt to obstruct Plaintiff’s pending petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 Brown v. Lizarraga, CV 16-2935 ODW (AGR). The docket in Plaintiff’s pending habeas case indicates that Respondent has lodged the Reporter’s Transcripts and Dockets.Justia.com 1 Court Clerk’s Transcripts in that case. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 23, 38.) Moreover, defense 2 counsel represents that he gave his entire court file in Plaintiff’s criminal case to 3 Plaintiff’s wife, Becky Brown, several years ago. (Dkt. No. 50 at 3.) Plaintiff also 4 complains that Defendant has not produced his retainer agreement signed by Ms. 5 Brown. Defendant represented that he produced all contracts/invoices for services in 6 Plaintiff’s complaint to Plaintiff. (Id. at 3.) Defendants further represents that he has 7 produced his emails and written communications to Ms. Brown and the prosecutor, 8 Ms. Rose. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff previously attached Defendant’s letter dated 9 November 2, 2017 on these issues. (Dkt. No. 57 at 9-10.) 10 Although Plaintiff does not believe Defendant’s representations (Dkt. No. 63), 11 “[a] plaintiff’s mere suspicion that additional documents must exist is an insufficient 12 basis to grant a motion to compel.” Unilin Beheer B.V. v. NSL Trading Corp., 2015 13 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192143, *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017). 14 15 16 Moreover, the requested discovery would not aid Plaintiff in avoiding the Heck bar on his claims. IT IS ORDERED that (1) Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is 17 granted (Dkt. No. 44) and this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Heck 18 v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); (2) Plaintiff’s request for a stay is denied; (3) 19 Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment are denied without prejudice as moot (Dkt. 20 Nos. 40-41); and (4) Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is denied (Dkt. No. 46). 21 22 23 DATED: July 13, 2018 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 2

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.