Briceno v. Williams et al, No. 3:2016cv01665 - Document 107 (S.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER Denying 97 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 6/2/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Briceno v. Williams et al Doc. 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 MARCUS D. BRICENO CDCR #AU0333, 15 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 97] Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No.: 3:16-cv-1665 JAH (AGS) v. BLAKE WILLIAMS, Defendant. 16 17 18 Currently before the Court is Defendant Blake Williams’ (“Williams”) Motion for 19 20 Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 97.) 21 I. Procedural History 22 On February 20, 2020, Williams filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on 23 qualified immunity grounds as to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment Excessive Force claims. 24 (See Doc. No. 77.) The Court GRANTED in Part, and DENIED in part, Williams’ 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Doc. No. 96.) Specifically, the Court found that 26 there were “genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether Williams violated 27 Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights” which is the first prong of the qualified immunity 28 analysis. (Id. at 17.) The Court GRANTED Williams’ qualified immunity with regard 1 16cv1665-JAH (AGS) Dockets.Justia.com 1 to the “take down” of Plaintiff but DENIED Williams’ qualified immunity for the “punch 2 or punches to [Plaintiff’s] head after he was taken to the ground.” (Id. at 21.) 3 Williams moves for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 59(e). (See Doc. No. 97). Specifically, Williams “requests reconsideration of the order 5 at the point where the Court denied qualified immunity for the alleged punch(es) based 6 on the find that the right was clearly established by Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 7 F.3d 463, 478-79 (9th Cit. 2007).” (Id. at 1.) Williams argues that the Court 8 impermissibly cited to this case because it was “not argued by Plaintiff in his 9 oppositions” and the Court “misinterpret[ed] or expand[ed] the holding of Blankenhorn.” 10 (Doc. No. 97-1 at 2.) 11 I. Williams’ Motion 12 A. 13 While Williams purports to bring this Motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), this section Standard of Review 14 relates to judgments and no judgment has yet to be entered in this matter. However, a 15 motion requesting reconsideration of a matter previously decided may be construed as a 16 motion to alter an order pursuant to Rule 60(b). See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 17 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 18 (9th Cir. 1994). 19 Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is 20 shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 21 evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court's 22 decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 23 been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J 24 v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 25 “Although the application of Rule 60(b) is committed to the discretion of the 26 district courts . . ., as a general matter, Rule 60(b) is remedial in nature and must be 27 liberally applied.” TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695-96 (9th Cir. 28 2001) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). Nevertheless, Rule 60(b) provides 2 16cv1665-JAH (AGS) 1 for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a showing of “exceptional 2 circumstances.” Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994). 3 B. 4 5 Williams’ arguments 1. Blankenhorn citation Williams argues it was error for the Court to rely on the Blankenhorn decision 6 when the Court found that the holding in Blankenhorn clearly established to a reasonable 7 officer that striking Plaintiff multiple times in the head while he was being handcuffed 8 and posed no immediate threat to officers or the public, would violate Plaintiff’s Fourth 9 Amendment right. (Doc. No. 97-1 at 3.) Specifically, Williams claims this was in error 10 because “Plaintiff did not discuss or interpret the Blankenhorn in either of his two 11 oppositions to the motion for summary judgment.” (Id.) 12 The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that “an ordinary pro se litigant, like other 13 litigants, must comply strictly with the summary judgment rules” but [p]ro se inmates are 14 however, expressly exempted from this rule.” Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 15 (9th Cir. 2010). “We have, therefore, held consistently that courts should construe 16 liberally motion papers and pleadings filed by pro se inmates and should avoid applying 17 summary judgment rules strictly.” Id. 18 “Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make 19 reasonable but mistaken judgments,” and “protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or 20 those who knowingly violate the law.’” Ashcroft v. al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011) 21 (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). “We do not require a case directly 22 on point” before concluding that the law is clearly established, “but existing precedent 23 must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” al–Kidd, 563 24 U.S. at 741. 25 The Court rejects Williams’ argument, because if applied, would require this Court 26 to ignore relevant case law on the ground that a pro se inmate litigant, with obviously 27 limited access to law libraries, did not cite to a specific case in their opposition. See e.g., 28 Soto v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2018) cert denied, 139 S.Ct. 488 (2018). 3 16cv1665-JAH (AGS) 1 2 2. Application of Blankenhorn Next, Williams argues that Blankenhorn decision is not applicable to the facts in 3 this matter because in Blankenhorn there was a disputed issue of material fact as to 4 whether the plaintiff had his arms “beneath his body” necessitating the use of force, by 5 punching the plaintiff in the head in order to place him in handcuffs. (Doc. No. 97-1 at 4 6 citing Blankenhorn, 485 F.3d at 480). Williams argues Blankenhorn is inapplicable 7 because in this matter “it is undisputed here that Plaintiff actively kept his arms 8 underneath him after he fell to the ground” and thus, Williams was “reasonably justified” 9 in using force by striking Plaintiff in the head to gain compliance. (Doc. No. 97-1 at 4 10 11 citing Pl.’s Depo, Doc. No. 77-16 at 81:9-11.) Attached to Plaintiff’s first Opposition is Williams’ testimony at his preliminary 12 hearing. (Doc. No. 91 at 27-106.) Williams testifies that Plaintiff initially had his hands 13 underneath him when he slammed him to the ground, but Williams also testifies that 14 when he struck Plaintiff in the head it was when Plaintiff was “pushing up” and 15 Plaintiff’s hands were no longer underneath him. (Id. at 71-72.) In addition, Plaintiff’s 16 deposition testimony, disputed Williams’ assertion, and it is far from clear that his hands 17 were underneath him when Williams allegedly punched him in the head. In Williams’ 18 Motion, he sets forth Plaintiff’s testimony as follows: 19 Q: And you said your hands were underneath you? 20 A: Yeah. […] 21 (97-1 at 4 citing Doc. No. 77-16, Ex. 14 at 81:9-11). 22 However, the exchange more broadly is as follows: 23 Q: Did you – describe for me how you landed. Did you land on your stomach? 24 A: I landed on my stomach. 25 Q: And you said that your hands were underneath you? 26 A. Yeah. I tried to protect my hand from slamming on the floor, so I just - - it 27 was a quick slam on the floor. So I just went like face-first to the floor. But I tried to 28 protect my hands at the same time. 4 16cv1665-JAH (AGS) 1 Q: Did Officer Williams say anything to you? 2 A: No. He just started punching me. 3 (Id. at 81:6-16.) 4 It is not clear from this testimony that Plaintiff’s hands were underneath him while 5 Williams was purportedly punching him in the head and Williams’ previous testimony in 6 Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction suggests that his hands may not have been underneath 7 Plaintiff when Williams punched Plaintiff in the head. Like the facts in Blankenhorn, 8 there are disputed facts as to whether Plaintiff had actually “pinned his arms beneath his 9 body” or “maneuver[ed] his arms beneath his body” before Williams punched Plaintiff in 10 the head to gain compliance. Blankenhorn, 485 F.3d at 480. In fact, there is a disputed 11 issue of material fact as whether Williams told Plaintiff to free his hands before he hit 12 Plaintiff in the head and Williams also seems to suggest in his prior testimony that 13 Plaintiff’s hands were not pinned underneath him, but Plaintiff was in fact pushing 14 himself up after landing on his stomach after being slammed to the ground by Williams. 15 As the Ninth Circuit found in Blankenhorn, we must credit Plaintiff’s version of 16 events at the summary judgment stage and conclude that a “rational jury could find that if 17 [Plaintiff] did not maneuver his arms beneath his body it eliminated the need for any use 18 of force to release them, and thus that [Williams’] punches were not reasonably justified 19 by the circumstances as he claims.” Id. 20 Because Williams has provided no basis for the Court to vacate or set aside its 21 October 15, 2020 Order, relief under Rule 60 is not warranted. See School Dist. No. 1J, 5 22 F.3d at 1442; Engleson, 972 F.2d at 1044. Ultimately, a party seeking reconsideration 23 must show “more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the 24 cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to 25 carry the moving party’s burden.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 26 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 27 /// 28 /// 5 16cv1665-JAH (AGS) 1 III. Conclusion and Order 2 For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that: 3 Williams’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 97) is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 8 9 Dated: June 2, 2021 Hon. John A. Houston United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 16cv1665-JAH (AGS)
]]>
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.
