(PC) Madrid v. Pease et al, No. 1:2015cv00770 - Document 37 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING Motion to Stay Case Pending Payment of Costs of a Prior Action 23 , 24 , 29 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/23/2018: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 JOHN MADRID, Case No.: 1:15-cv-00770-LJO-BAM (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING PAYMENT OF COSTS OF A PRIOR ACTION 11 v. 12 P. PEASE, et al., 13 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 23, 24, 29) 14 15 16 Plaintiff John Madrid is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 17 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s second 19 amended complaint against Defendants Pease, Mendez, Burnes, Thatcher, Aguerralde, and 20 Sauceda for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 17.) 21 I. Background 22 On September 1, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to stay this case pending the payment 1 23 of costs of a prior action, (ECF No. 23), and a request for judicial notice, (ECF No. 24.) On 24 November 7, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 25 recommending that Defendants’ motion be denied. (ECF No. 29.) The parties were advised that 26 they could file objections within fourteen (14) days. (Id. at 12.) 27 1 Defendants filed amended exhibits to their request for judicial notice on September 5, 2018. (ECF No. 28 25.) 1 1 On November 21, 2017, Defendants filed objections to the findings and 2 recommendations. On November 22, 2017, Defendants served the objections on Plaintiff, (ECF 3 No. 32), and also moved for an extension of time to serve the objections nunc pro tunc due to an 4 administrative error, (ECF No. 32). The Court granted the extension of time. (ECF No. 33.) 5 On December 6, 2017, Plaintiff requested a thirty-day extension of time to respond to 6 Defendants’ objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 34.) On December 7, 7 2017, the Court granted the requested extension. (ECF No. 35.) 8 On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed his response to Defendants’ objections to the findings 9 and recommendations. (ECF No. 36.) 10 II. Objections and Response to Objections 11 Plaintiff alleges in this case that on February 7, 2010, Defendants used excessive force on 12 him while he was housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison. Defendants assert in their motion to 13 stay that Plaintiff should be required to pay $546 in costs incurred by Defendants to litigate a 14 prior state court action before he may proceed in this suit. 15 As noted above, the assigned magistrate judge recommended denial of Defendants’ 16 motion. (ECF No. 29.) The magistrate judge found that it was undisputed that the state court 17 action and the current federal lawsuit are based on the same facts and circumstances, and involve 18 the same parties. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff’s prior state court action was dismissed without prejudice 19 due to California Government Code § 945.3, because criminal charges were then-pending based 20 on the same incidents as Plaintiff’s lawsuit. (Id. at 4-5.) A few months after those charges were 21 dismissed, Plaintiff initiated the current lawsuit. (Id. at 7.) 22 The magistrate judge recommended denial of Defendants’ motion to stay and 23 recommending declining to award costs here. Factors the magistrate judge considered included 24 that: (1) Plaintiff did not cause Defendants to simultaneously litigate duplicative actions in two 25 separate courts; (2) Plaintiff did not re-file his action until after his criminal charges were 26 resolved; (3) the state court deliberated on whether to allow Plaintiff’s state court suit to proceed, 27 showing the issue was reasonably litigated by Plaintiff; and (4) Plaintiff was not engaging in 28 forum shopping. 2 Defendants object that the magistrate judge misapplied the relevant case law, erred in 1 2 finding that Plaintiff’s conduct here was not harassing or vexatious in nature, and thus erred in 3 not recommending that Plaintiff be required to pay the court costs here. Defendants assert that 4 although requiring the payment of costs is an important method of deterring harassing and 5 vexatious litigation, it is not required to award costs, and that an award of costs is appropriate in 6 under the facts and circumstances of this case. (ECF No. 31, at 3) (citing Hacopian v. U.S. Dep’t 7 of Labor, 709 F.2d 1295 (9th Cir. 1983)). Defendants cite that the state court ultimately 8 concluded that Plaintiff’s state court suit violated California law, that his pro se status and 9 ignorance of the law does not excuse his mistake in filing his initial suit while criminal charges 10 were pending, and that they incurred costs related to his state court claims which will not benefit 11 them in the instant suit. Plaintiff responds that Defendants are misstating the purpose of Rule 41 in seeking the 12 13 payment of the costs from the prior state court action. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants 14 should have sought these costs in the state court action or as a sanction, and that he has not acted 15 in bad faith here.2 16 III. Discussion 17 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 18 de novo review of this case, including Defendants’ objections to the findings and 19 recommendations and Plaintiff’s response to those objections. Having carefully reviewed the 20 entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 21 by proper analysis. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d) confers broad discretion upon the federal courts to 22 23 order stays and payment of costs, although neither is mandatory. Esquivel v. Arau, 913 F. Supp. 24 1382, 1386 (C.D. Cal. 1996). The rule does not require a showing of subjective bad faith, id. at 25 1388, as the rule effectively presumes dismissing an action and then bringing the same action 26 2 Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants’ objections should be considered waived for untimeliness due to 27 their one-day delay in serving them. As noted above, the Court granted Defendants an extension of time nunc pro tunc upon finding that Defendants showed good cause for the delay and that there was no 28 prejudice to Plaintiff. Thus, Defendants’ objections will be considered here. 3 1 again is abusive per se, id. at 1391. Thus, the decision whether to impose costs and a stay is left 2 to “the judge’s discretion in light of the surrounding circumstances.” Id. at 1391 n.14. 3 A court may decline to award costs where the plaintiff has a persuasive explanation for 4 his litigation conduct, where a plaintiff is financially unable to pay the costs, or where justice so 5 requires. Id. (citing Zucker v. Katz, 708 F. Supp. 525, 539 (S.D.N.Y. 1989), Wahl v. Wichita, 701 6 F. Supp. 1530 (D. Kan. 1988), Bellamy v. Jones, 600 F. Supp. 150 (E.D. Ark. 1985), Gregory v. 7 Dimock, 286 F.2d 717 (2d Cir. 1961)). The purpose of an award of costs is to deter forum 8 shopping and vexatious litigation, id. at 1386 (quoting Simeone v. First Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 971 9 F.2d 103, 108 (8th Cir. 1992)), including attempts to gain tactical advantages through a voluntary 10 dismissal, Johnson v. Gonzalez, No. 1:14-cv-1252-LJO-EPG, 2017 WL 2119913, at *3 (E.D. 11 Cal. May 16, 2017). In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to award costs, courts consider 12 whether doing so is necessary to prevent prejudice to the defendant. Esquivel, 913 F. Supp. at 13 1387. 14 Considering the intent of the rule here, the applicable law, and the circumstances in this 15 case, the Court finds it appropriate to deny Defendants’ motion to stay this action and declines to 16 award costs here for the prior state court action. Plaintiff’s act of waiting to re-file this action 17 until after his criminal charges were resolved show that he seeks a determination on the merits of 18 his claim, rather than attempting exploit some kind of tactical advantage, or to seek a more 19 favorable forum. Deterrence of abusive litigation tactics is not served by an award of costs here. 20 There is no prejudice to Defendants in this case, as they received the outcome they sought 21 through their state court demurrer—they avoided litigating Plaintiff’s civil claim while his 22 criminal charges were pending. Defendants previously argued that had Plaintiff brought a §1983 23 suit rather than a state court case, the suit would not have been barred by California law and they 24 would have been required to simultaneously defend against Plaintiff’s civil claim Plaintiff’s 25 criminal charges were pending. Thus, they appear to have benefitted from Plaintiff’s mistake and 26 his apparent belief that he could not litigate these issues at all while the criminal charges were 27 pending, which he refrained from doing. Also, the factors considered by the magistrate judge are 28 persuasive. 4 Finally, although not conclusive, Plaintiff has declared that he has no source of income or 1 2 employment, (ECF No. 2), and thus an award of costs here would likely result in the termination 3 of this suit for Plaintiff’s non-payment. Under these collective circumstances, the Court declines 4 to award the costs Defendants seek in this case for the prior state court action. 5 IV. Conclusion and Order 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. 8 adopted in full; 9 2. 10 11 12 The findings and recommendations, filed on November 7, 2017 (ECF No. 29), are Defendants’ motion to stay this case pending payment of costs of a prior action, filed on September 1, 2017 (ECF No. 23), is denied; and 3. Defendants shall respond to the second amended complaint within fourteen days of the date of service of this order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ January 23, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
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.
