Morris v. Scott Kernan, et al., No. 1:2017cv01488 - Document 55 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SUTTONS RULE 60(b)(6) MOTION (Doc. Nos. 50, 54 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/22/2019. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Sutton's request for judicial notice (Doc. No. 54) is GRANTED; and Sutton's Rule 60(b)(6) motion (Doc. No. 50) is DENIED. (Gonzales, V)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 JENNIFER MORRIS, 5 Plaintiff, 6 7 CASE NO. 1:17-cv-01488-AWI-SAB ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SUTTON’S RULE 60(b)(6) MOTION v. JOHN SUTTON, 8 (Doc. Nos. 50, 54) Defendant. 9 I. Background 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jason Morris (hereinafter “Jason”) was a convicted sex offender. While Jason was imprisoned in California’s Wasco State Prison, prison officials placed Jason in a “double” prison cell with a cellmate who had a violent, non-sexual criminal history. By double-celling Jason with a violent prisoner, the prison allegedly placed Jason in harm’s way and contravened reasonable prison policies, which aim to prevent sex offenders from being double-celled with prisoners who have violent, non-sexual criminal histories. On February 7, 2017, Jason was strangled to death by his cellmate. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff Jennifer Morris (hereinafter “Morris”), who was Jason’s wife, sued the following defendants: (1) California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”); (2) the secretary of CDCR, Scott Kernan; (3) the warden of California’s Wasco State Prison, John Sutton; and (4) multiple unnamed “Doe” defendants. In Morris’s original complaint, which was filed on November 3, 2017, Morris pleaded the following causes of action: (1) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against all defendants for depriving Jason and Morris of their constitutional rights; (2) a California Bane Act claim under California Civil Code § 52.1 against Sutton and the Doe defendants for depriving Jason and Morris of their rights under federal and California law; (3) a negligence claim against Sutton and the Doe defendants for allowing Jason to be killed in prison; and (4) a wrongful death claim against all defendants based on Morris’s damages caused by Jason’s death. 1 The parties engaged in Rule 12(b)(6) motion practice, which led the Court on March 8, 2 2018, to dismiss with prejudice all of Morris’s claims against CDCR and Kernan. Thereafter, 3 Morris filed her first amended complaint on April 9, 2018, pleading the following amended causes 4 of action: (1) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against only the Doe defendants; (2) a California Bane Act 5 claim against only the Doe defendants; (3) a negligence claim against Sutton and the Doe 6 defendants; and (4) a wrongful death claim against only Sutton and the Doe defendants. 7 8 The Court then issued a scheduling order on August 15, 2018, and the scheduling order imposed the following deadlines and dates on the parties: 9 • January 14, 2018, for lodging motions for leave to amend the pleadings; 10 • March 29, 2019, for completion of non-expert discovery; 11 • June 28, 2019, for lodging dispositive motions; 12 • November 5, 2019, for the start of trial. 13 14 Doc. 23 (Court’s scheduling order). The deadline to amend the pleadings and the discovery deadline eventually expired, and by 15 that time, Morris failed to amend her complaint to identify and name any of the unnamed Doe 16 defendants. For that reason, the Court concluded that Morris’s § 1983 claim was facially 17 implausible. Stated the Court, 18 19 20 21 [T]he § 1983 claim is not pleaded against any named defendants. This makes the claim facially implausible at this post-discovery and post-amendment phase. The shelf-life of Plaintiff’s Doe designations has expired: the designations were permitted as a placeholder for named defendants only during the discovery phase, not at trial. 22 Doc. No. 49 (citations omitted). On that basis, the Court dismissed with prejudice Morris’s § 23 1983 claim on September 6, 2019. See id. 24 Up until that time, the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction in this lawsuit was premised on, 25 first, federal question jurisdiction over the § 1983 claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and, second, 26 supplemental jurisdiction over the California state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 27 Consequently, when the Court dismissed the § 1983 claim on September 6, 2019 — which was 28 approximately two months before the scheduled trial date, November 5, 2019 — the Court no 2 1 longer had federal question jurisdiction over this lawsuit: the only remaining claims were 2 California state law claims. With the Court no longer exercising federal question jurisdiction over 3 this lawsuit at a time when the scheduled trial date was months into the future and the Court had 4 not adjudicated any summary judgment motions,1 the Court exercised its discretion under 28 5 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to discontinue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, 6 which the Court dismissed without prejudice. 7 The Court’s dismissal decision was guided by the authorization and instruction from 8 Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Ninth Circuit in, respectively, 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(2)-(3), 9 United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966), and Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 10 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1997). Those authorities collectively hold that a federal district court exercising 11 supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims should relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction and 12 dismiss without prejudice the state law claims if, first, the district court dismisses all federal law 13 claims before trial and, second, the dismissal of the state law claims will comport with the values 14 of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. 15 Sutton was displeased with the Court’s dismissal decision. He wanted Morris’s state law 16 claims against him to be adjudicated in this federal forum, either by way of summary judgment or 17 trial. Consequently, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), Sutton moved the Court to reconsider and reverse 18 its dismissal decision. See Doc. No. 50-1 (Sutton’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion brief). 19 After Sutton filed his Rule 60(b)(6) motion, Morris filed a lawsuit in California state court 20 against Sutton and other defendants based on virtually the same allegations that Morris alleged in 21 this federal lawsuit.2 II. Sutton’s Rule 60(b)(6) Motion 22 Sutton argues that there are “extraordinary circumstances” under Rule 60(b)(6) that require 23 24 25 the Court to reverse its dismissal decision and resume exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Sutton asserts that the Court’s dismissal decision of September 6, 2019, was made “on the eve of trial.” Sutton’s “eve of trial” characterization is, put charitably, exaggerated. When the Court issued its dismissal decision, the scheduled trial date was still sixty days away, the pretrial conference had yet to occur, and motions in limine and trial briefs had not yet been filed. 2 Sutton apprised the Court of Morris’s state court lawsuit by filing with the Court copies of Morris’s state court complaint and an amendment to that complaint. See Doc. No. 54. Sutton requested that the Court take judicial notice of those state court filings. Id. Sutton’s request for judicial notice will be granted. See Fed. R. Evid. 201. 1 26 27 28 3 1 Morris’s state law claims. The following circumstances, according to Sutton, collectively amount 2 to “extraordinary circumstances” under Rule 60(b)(6). 3 First, by the time the Court issued its dismissal decision on September 6, 2019, the state 4 law claims had been “extensively” litigated in this forum. Doc. No. 50-1 at 7. The parties had 5 conducted discovery, and Sutton had prepared and filed a summary judgment motion which was 6 pending when the Court issued its dismissal decision, and trial was just two months away. Second, by the time the Court issued is dismissal decision, Sutton “by way of the State and 7 8 its taxpayers” had spent over $75,000 in legal fees and costs in this lawsuit.3 Those funds will be 9 effectively “wasted” if Sutton is required to “re”-defend himself “from the beginning” in Morris’s 10 California state court lawsuit. Doc. No. 50-1 at 6-7. Third, Morris will receive a “windfall” if she is permitted to adjudicate her state law claims 11 12 in the California state court lawsuit. By “windfall,” Sutton means the following three events will 13 occur: (1) Morris will be able to name additional defendants in the state court lawsuit that Morris 14 failed to timely name in this federal lawsuit; (2) Morris will be able to conduct additional 15 depositions in the state court lawsuit that Morris failed to timely conduct during the discovery 16 phase in this federal lawsuit; and (3) Morris will be able to re-depose Sutton in the state court 17 lawsuit even though she deposed Sutton in this federal lawsuit. 18 Fourth, Morris’s remaining state law claims are neither novel nor complex, so comity does 19 not weigh heavily in favor of this Court relinquishing its supplemental jurisdiction in favor of the 20 California state courts. III. Legal Standard for Rule 60(b)(6) 21 Rule 60(b)(6) states that “on motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its 22 23 legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . any . . . reason that justifies 24 relief.” Rule 60(b)(6) “has been used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest 25 injustice.” Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997). To receive relief under 26 Rule 60(b)(6), the movant must demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” that, absent the 27 28 3 Throughout this lawsuit, including through the filing of the instant Rule 60(b)(6) motion, Sutton has been represented by the Attorney General of the State of California. 4 1 Court’s relief, will result in “manifest injustice.” Riley v. Filson, 933 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2 2019) (emphasis added); see also Sawka v. Healtheast, Inc., 989 F.2d 138, 140 (3d Cir. 1993) 3 (characterizing “extraordinary circumstances” for purposes of Rule 60(b)(6) as those that result in 4 an “extreme and unexpected hardship”) (emphasis added). Because extraordinary circumstances 5 under Rule 60(b)(6) are rare, “judgments are not often set aside under Rule 60(b)(6).” In re Int’l 6 Fibercom, Inc., 503 F.3d 933, 941 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). IV. Discussion 7 Sutton has not demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances” that warrant relief under Rule 8 9 60(b)(6). This is because the Court’s decision to relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction of 10 Morris’s state law claims — which was not an abuse of discretion — does not amount to 11 “manifest injustice” or an “extreme and unexpected hardship” to Sutton. 12 13 14 A. The Court did not abuse its discretion by relinquishing its supplemental jurisdiction over Morris’s state law claims. The Court’s decision to relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction was sound. As noted 15 supra, the Court’s decision was guided by the authorization and instruction from Congress, the 16 Supreme Court, and the Ninth Circuit in, respectively, 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(2)-(3), United Mine 17 Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966), and Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999 18 (9th Cir. 1997). 19 Section 1367(c)(3) authorizes federal district courts to “decline to exercise supplemental 20 jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has 21 original jurisdiction.” Additionally, § 1367(c)(2) authorizes federal district courts to decline to 22 exercise supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim “substantially predominates over the 23 claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” Here the Court was faced 24 with both of those situations when Morris’s § 1983 claim was dismissed: all federal claims had 25 been dismissed before trial, and as a result the remaining state law claims inescapably and 26 substantially predominated over any federal law claims, of which there were none. Therefore, the 27 Court was authorized by Congress to relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction over Morris’s state 28 law claims. 5 1 While § 1367(c) authorizes a federal district court to relinquish its supplemental 2 jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit in Acri instructed federal district courts that their decision to 3 relinquish supplemental jurisdiction must be based on more than just the authorization in § 4 1367(c). In addition to the authorization in § 1367(c), a federal district court’s decision to 5 relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction must also be “informed by the Gibbs values of economy, 6 convenience, fairness, and comity.” Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001. In conjunction with issuing this 7 instruction in Acri, the Ninth Circuit quoted the Supreme Court, which stated in Carnegie-Mellon 8 Univ. v. Cohill that “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, 9 the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining 10 state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 (1988) (emphasis 11 added) (quoted by Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001). 4 The Ninth Circuit’s reference to the “Gibbs values” comes from the Supreme Court’s 12 13 opinion in United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966). There the Supreme Court 14 stated that a federal district court “should hesitate” to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state 15 law claims if “considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness . . . are not present.” 16 Id. at 726. The Supreme Court also stated in Gibbs that “[n]eedless decisions of state law should 17 be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for 18 them a surer-footed reading of applicable law.” Id. In Gibbs the Supreme Court also laid the 19 groundwork for what is now § 1367(c)(2)-(3), stating that, first, “if the federal claims are 20 dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims 21 should be dismissed as well”; and, second, “if it appears that the state issues substantially 22 predominate, whether in terms of proof, of the scope of the issues raised, or of the 23 comprehensiveness of the remedy sought, the state claims may be dismissed without prejudice and 24 left for resolution to state tribunals.” Id. at 726-27 (emphasis added); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2)- 25 (3). These statements in Gibbs and Congress’s codification of those statements in § 1367(c)(2)-(3) 26 clearly contemplate and approve of certain situations wherein state law claims are maintained for a 27 28 Acri is also significant because there the Ninth Circuit clarified that that although “state law claims ‘should’ be dismissed if federal claims are dismissed before trial, as Gibbs instructs, [Gibbs] has never meant that [state law claims] must be dismissed.” Acri, 114 F.3d at 1000 (emphasis added). 4 6 1 time in federal court pursuant to “pendent” or supplemental jurisdiction but then, at some point 2 prior to trial, dismissed without prejudice because the federal court no longer has original 3 jurisdiction over the federal law claims. And when the Supreme Court and Congress 4 contemplated state law claims being maintained for a time in federal court prior to dismissal, their 5 contemplation must have envisioned the state law claims being subjected to discovery, Rule 12(b) 6 motion practice, and conceivably even unsuccessful summary judgment motion practice. 7 Here, in conjunction with dismissing Morris’s § 1983 claim, the Court correctly concluded 8 that authorization existed under § 1367(c)(2)-(3) to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over 9 Morris’s state law claims. With that statutory authorization having been “triggered,” see Acri, 114 10 F.3d at 1001 (“[D]iscretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is 11 triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c) . . . .”), the Court then considered 12 and weighed the Gibbs values, as follows. 13 On the one hand, considerations of Sutton’s convenience weighed in favor of the Court 14 maintaining its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. This was because Sutton had 15 engaged in discovery and prepared and filed a summary judgment motion in this federal lawsuit, 16 and Sutton had expended time, attention, and legal fees and costs to defend himself in this federal 17 lawsuit — although that can be said of most earnest defendants. 18 But on the other hand, judicial economy, fairness, and comity weighed in favor of this 19 Court relinquishing its supplemental jurisdiction. As for judicial economy, the District Court 20 Judge was not intimately familiar with the merits of Morris’s state law claims and Sutton’s 21 defenses, having been exposed to the elemental substance of the claims only at the Rule 12(b)(6) 22 phase.5 Accordingly, there was no significant waste of this Court’s judicial resources by 23 dismissing without prejudice the state law claims.6 24 5 25 26 27 28 While it is true that the Magistrate Judge was involved with some discovery issues and pleading-amendment issues in this lawsuit, it is the District Court Judge, not the Magistrate Judge, who would handle summary judgment and trial. 6 Inversely, if the Court had elected to maintain its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, then the Court would be required to expend the immense judicial resources that are necessary to adjudicate summary judgment motions and / or a jury trial. It is no secret that the Eastern District of California has one of the heaviest caseloads in the Ninth Circuit and the nation, insofar as weighted filings per authorized judgeship are concerned. See U.S. COURTS, U.S. DISTRICT COURTS — WEIGHTED AND UNWEIGHTED FILINGS PER AUTHORIZED JUDGESHIP — DURING THE 12-MONTH PERIODS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 AND 2017, Publication Table Number: X-1A, https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/jb_x1a_0930.2017.pdf. 7 1 As for fairness, there was no indication that Sutton would be treated unfairly if he were to 2 defend himself in a California state court lawsuit. The fact that Morris could add additional 3 defendants in a state court lawsuit does not demonstrate unfairness towards Sutton. Additionally, 4 the fact that Sutton’s summary judgment motion was pending when the Court dismissed this 5 federal lawsuit does not demonstrate unfairness towards Sutton. For one, while the Court did not 6 decide the merits of Sutton’s summary judgment motion, the Court was aware that Sutton’s 7 summary judgment motion failed to comply with the Court’s procedures for summary judgment 8 motions, see Doc. No. 23 (Court’s scheduling order requiring Sutton to both (1) meet-and-confer 9 with Morris prior to filing a summary judgment motion and (2) file a joint statement of undisputed 10 facts with the summary judgment motion), and on that basis alone the Court could have denied 11 Sutton’s summary judgment motion. For another, whatever merit existed in Sutton’s summary 12 judgment motion will likely continue to exist in Morris’s state court lawsuit, and Sutton has failed 13 to demonstrate otherwise. Additionally, the fact that Sutton may have to engage in some 14 redundant discovery in a state court lawsuit does not demonstrate unfairness towards Sutton. It is 15 a simple reality — one that Congress, the Supreme Court, and Ninth Circuit are surely aware of — 16 that there will oftentimes be redundancy of discovery and other litigation procedures when a state 17 law claim is dismissed pursuant to § 1367(c)(2)-(3) and renewed in a subsequent state court 18 lawsuit. Further, the idea proposed by Sutton that he will have to start from “scratch” in a 19 subsequent state court lawsuit is a fiction: much of Sutton’s strategy and discovery from this 20 federal lawsuit can be “recycled” and relied upon in any subsequent state court lawsuit filed by 21 Morris. For all these reasons, Gibbs’ fairness consideration did not weigh in favor of the Court 22 maintaining its supplemental jurisdiction over Morris’s state law claims. 23 As for comity, this consideration weighed strongly in favor of relinquishing supplemental 24 jurisdiction. This is because the California state courts have the primary responsibility for 25 developing and applying their state law claims, including Morris’s Bane Act, negligence, and 26 wrongful death claims. Sutton’s “neither novel nor complex” contention fails to rattle that 27 conclusion. While it may be true that Morris’s state law claims are neither novel nor complex, 28 Sutton’s contention hearkens to § 1367(c)(1), which states that a federal district court “may 8 1 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the claim raises a novel or 2 complex issue of State law.” The problem for Sutton, of course, is that the Court never premised 3 its dismissal decision on § 1367(c)(1). 4 5 B. Rule 60(b)(6) relief is not warranted because there are no extraordinary circumstances that will result in manifest injustice. 6 Assuming arguendo that the Court abused its discretion by relinquishing its supplemental 7 jurisdiction over Morris’s state law claims, relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is still not warranted. This 8 is because there are no extraordinary circumstances that will result in manifest injustice to Sutton. 9 As noted supra, extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6) are rare. The following 10 six examples are situations where extraordinary circumstances existed and warranted judicial 11 relief under Rule 60(b)(6). First, Rule 60(b)(6) relief was appropriate to set aside a default 12 judgment in a denaturalization proceeding because the petitioner had been ill, incarcerated, and 13 without counsel for the four years following the judgment. Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 14 601 (1949). Second, Rule 60(b)(6) relief was appropriate for a litigant against whom judgment 15 was entered by a judge who had improperly refused to recuse himself in the proceeding. Liljeberg 16 v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988). Third, Rule 60(b)(6) relief was 17 appropriate where the trial court granted the government’s motion to strike the non-moving party’s 18 answers and claims in a property forfeiture proceeding without first providing notice to the non- 19 moving party and permitting a reply from the non-moving party, which, incidentally, was a 20 violation of the trial court’s own rules. U.S. v. 1982 Sanger 24’ Spectra Boat, Serial No. 21 SANSP69ZM82, R5-83-0015, Value Approximately $28,000.00, and Attached Trailer, Nevada 22 License No. T61942, 738 F.2d 1043 (9th Cir. 1984). Fourth, Rule 60(b)(6) relief was appropriate 23 where the losing party, through no significant fault of its own, failed to receive notice of the entry 24 of judgment in time to file an appeal. Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1983). Fifth, Rule 25 60(b)(6) relief may be appropriate when fraud has been committed on the court. Latshaw v. 26 Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2006). Sixth, Rule 60(b)(6) relief may be 27 appropriate when a litigant’s attorney was grossly negligent. Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 524 28 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing In Community Dental Services v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2002)). 9 1 Unlike the foregoing examples where litigants were faced with extreme and unexpected 2 hardships that were largely no fault of their own, here Sutton is simply a former defendant “in the 3 usual case [where] all federal-law claims [were] eliminated before trial” and the Gibbs values 4 weighed in favor of relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367(c)(2)-(3). Acri, 5 114 F.3d at 1001. That Sutton might have to defend himself (while being represented by the tax- 6 payer-funded Attorney General of the State of California) against Morris in a California state court 7 lawsuit does not amount to manifest injustice to Sutton. That Morris might add additional 8 defendants in that state court lawsuit does not amount to manifest injustice to Sutton. That the 9 Court denied as moot Sutton’s procedurally defective summary judgment motion does not amount 10 to manifest injustice to Sutton. That the Court made its dismissal decision before the pretrial 11 conference and sixty days before the scheduled trial date does not amount to manifest injustice to 12 Sutton. In short, here there are no extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6), and for that 13 reason Sutton’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion will be denied. 14 ORDER 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 (1) Sutton’s request for judicial notice (Doc. No. 54) is GRANTED; and 17 (2) Sutton’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion (Doc. No. 50) is DENIED. 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 22, 2019 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10
]]>
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.
