Curtis v. Benda, et al., No. 3:2008cv05109 - Document 167 (W.D. Wash. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER granting 163 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; the discvoery deadline is extneded until 6/9/2011, for the sole purpose of allowing Plaintiff to take the deposition of Timothy Davis. The Clerk shall strike the noting date of Defendant Riley's 148 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

Download PDF

Curtis v. Benda, et al. Doc. 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 JAMES EDWARD CURTIS, No. 08-5109 BHS/KLS 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 12 v. ORDER GRANTING RULE 56(d) CONTINUANCE TERRY J. BENDA and WILLIAM E. RILEY, Defendants. 13 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for discovery and continuance pursuant to Fed. R. 16 Civ. P. 56(d). ECF No. 163. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the motion 17 should be granted and discovery extended for the sole purpose of allowing Plaintiff to take the 18 deposition of Timothy Davis. 19 20 BACKGROUND On October 13, 2002, Plaintiff James Edward Curtis, a white male, along with another 21 22 23 white male inmate (Steven Eggers), assaulted James Wilkinson, a fellow inmate, who is an African-American male. ECF No. 44, pp. 8-9 (Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint). A criminal 24 information was filed on December 3, 2004, which charged Mr. Curtis with second degree 25 assault while armed with a deadly weapon, with alleged aggravating circumstances that the 26 crime was gang-related and/or racially motivated. ECF No. 112-19, p. 7. Defendant Benda ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 conducted the investigation into the assault, in conjunction with the Clallam County 2 Prosecutor’s Office. He provided his investigative report to the Clallam County Sheriff’s Office 3 (ECF No. 44, pp. 90-93) and a signed declaration in support of probable cause to the Clallam 4 County Prosecutor’s Office. ECF No. 112-19, p. 3. Defendant Riley also provided a written 5 statement to the Clallam County Sheriff’s Office, which Mr. Curtis asserts falsely connected 6 7 Mr. Curtis with the Aryan Family gang. ECF No. 44, pp. 84-85. Based on the information 8 gathered in the investigation, Mr. Benda believed the assault was racially-motivated and gang- 9 related. Id., p. 95. All charges against Mr. Curtis were subsequently dropped by the Clallam 10 11 12 County Prosecutor’s Office on September 8, 2005. ECF No. 26, p. 7. Mr. Curtis admits that he assaulted Mr. Wilkinson, an African-American inmate. ECF No. 44, pp. 7-8. However, he asserts that the assault was not gang related and that it was not 13 racially motivated and therefore the assault charge against him should not have included the 14 15 alleged aggravating circumstances. He alleges, however, that Mr. Benda and Mr. Riley 16 fabricated evidence during their investigation, which evidence was used to support the inclusion 17 of the aggravating circumstances of the assault charge. If the aggravating circumstances had 18 been proven at trial, Mr. Curtis could have been subjected to a harsher sentence than that 19 20 allowed by the standard sentencing range. As noted below, summary judgment in favor of Mr. Benda on Plaintiff’s claims has been granted. 21 22 23 Mr. Curtis alleges that Defendant Riley obtained a personal letter that Mr. Curtis “reportedly wrote to a friend (i.e., Larry Kisinger)” that ended with the closing, “Always & 24 Forever.” According to Mr. Curtis, Defendant Riley then coerced several known Aryan Family 25 members, who are also controlled informants, to write and close their letters using the words 26 “Always & Forever,” and then referenced this “fabricated evidence” of Mr. Curtis’ gang ORDER - 2 1 affiliation in a written statement provided to the Clallam County Sheriff’s Office. ECF No. 44- 2 2, pp. 32-35. 3 4 On September 8, 2009, the Court entered an order staying all discovery in this case pending resolution of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on absolute and 5 qualified immunity. ECF No. 74. The Court concluded that a stay was appropriate “[g]iven the 6 7 early stages of this litigation – an amended complaint was just filed four months hence and the 8 amount of discovery already propounded and anticipated . . . .” Id. at 4. Defendants submitted 9 their first motion for summary judgment based on qualified and absolute immunity, originally 10 noted for October 30, 2009. ECF No. 82. Plaintiff was granted two extensions of time to 11 respond to the first motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 90 and 102. On March 2, 2010, 12 Plaintiff moved for a continuance, pursuant to former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), so that he could 13 depose Tim Davis, the former Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney. ECF No. 103. That 14 15 motion was denied on March 8, 2010. ECF No. 105. The court found that there was no need 16 for discovery at that time on the issues absolute immunity as to both Defendants and qualified 17 immunity as to Defendant Benda. Id., p. 5. 18 19 20 Defendants’ first motion for summary judgment was granted as to qualified immunity for Defendant Benda and denied as to absolute immunity for both Defendants Benda and Riley. ECF No. 134. On December 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to re-open discovery. ECF 21 22 23 No. 147. That motion was denied. ECF No. 154. On December 15, 2010, Defendant Riley filed a second motion for summary judgment asserting that he is entitled to qualified immunity. ECF 24 No. 148. Plaintiff’s motions for continuance of the second motion for summary judgment were 25 granted, most recently to May 20, 2011. ECF Nos. Nos. 155 and 160. 26 Plaintiff now files another motion for continuance, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. ORDER - 3 1 56(d), so that he may take the deposition of Timothy Davis. ECF No. 163. Plaintiff provides 2 his declaration in support of the extension, along with documents obtained by Plaintiff in 3 February 2011 from a fellow inmate, who obtained them through a public records request. ECF 4 No. 165. The documents include emails from Timothy Davis to William Riley dated November 5 25, 2002 and November 27, 2005 (ECF No. 165, pp. 17 and 18); an undated memorandum 6 7 purportedly from Timothy Davis to an unnamed individual (ECF No. 165, p. 20); an unsigned 8 draft letter to Tim Davis regarding Mr. Riley’s investigation, the meaning of the letters “AF,” 9 Plaintiff Curtis’s debrief following the assault and his association with the Aryan Family (ECF 10 No. 165, p. 22); and, the Affidavit of William Riley regarding the Security Threat Group (STG) 11 and the importance of keeping confidential, the information gathered through DOC’s intelligence 12 efforts relating to STGs (ECF No. 165, p. 25). The undated memorandum purportedly written by 13 Timothy Davis to his successor prosecutor states, in part: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 At the early stages, the former boss of I&I (Steve Winters) and DOC’s Bill Riley, their prison gang guru were both involved in getting this one filed with all the enhancements possible. Each had an agenda, at times conflicting perhaps. All in all, it was a mistake to have followed their requests (Riley more than Winters, who just wanted to get it charged). … At the outset this was charged with an enhancement for gang related and also racial motivation (Riley and Winters). His extensive discovery requests, some of which DOC did not want to deal with (though I have heard that the AG office supplied the requested information and documents that we had rejected when a PDR was sent in) resulted in the scales falling from my eyes and the dropping of those aggravators in favor of the straight Assault 2. 22 23 ECF No. 165, p. 20. DISCUSSION 24 25 Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 26 If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: ORDER - 4 1 (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; 2 (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or 3 (3) issue any other appropriate order. 4 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (formerly subdivision (f)). 6 7 8 Cases interpreting former subdivision (f), make clear that a party seeking a continuance under Rule 56 must demonstrate that there are specific facts he hopes to discover if granted a continuance that will raise a genuine issue of material fact. Harris v. Duty Free Shoppers Ltd. 9 Partnership, 940 F.2d 1272, 1276 (9th Cir.1991); Carpenter v. Universal Star Shipping, S.A., 10 11 924 F.2d 1539, 1547 (9th Cir.1991). “The burden is on the party seeking to conduct additional 12 discovery to put forth sufficient facts to show that the evidence sought exists.” Volk v. D.A. 13 Davidson & Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 1416 (9th Cir.1987). See also Tatum v. City and County of San 14 Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir.2006); California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th 15 Cir. 1998) (party opposing on Rule 56(f) grounds needs to state the specific facts he hopes to 16 elicit from further discovery, that the facts sought exist and that the sought-after facts are 17 essential to resisting the summary judgment motion); Hancock v. Montgomery Ward Long Term 18 19 Disability Trust, 787 F.2d 1302, 1306 n. 1 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that the party opposing 20 summary judgment “has the burden under Rule 56(f) to show what facts he hopes to discover to 21 raise an issue of material fact”).1 22 23 24 A civil rights plaintiff opposing a claim of qualified immunity must establish the existence of a constitutional violation, clearly established law to support the claim, and that no reasonable official could believe their conduct was lawful. Pearson, et al. v. Callahan, 555 25 26 1 Of course, pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (pro se complaints, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”). ORDER - 5 1 U.S. 223, 129 S. Ct. 808 (2009); Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 2155 (2001); 2 Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991). The test for qualified immunity is an objective test 3 requiring the Plaintiff to prove a reasonable official could not believe his actions were 4 constitutional. See Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 871 (9th Cir. 1993); Hunter v. 5 Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 112 S. Ct. 534, 537 (1991). 6 7 There is a “clearly established constitutional due process right not to be subjected to 8 criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the 9 government.” Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2001). Under the 10 Fourteenth Amendment, there exists a “right not to be deprived of liberty without due process 11 of law, or more specifically, as the result of the fabrication of evidence by a government officer 12 acting in an investigative capacity.” See, e.g., Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 13 123, 130 (2d Cir.1997) (“When a police officer creates false information likely to influence a 14 15 jury’s decision and forwards that information to prosecutors, he violates the accused’s 16 constitutional right to a fair trial ....”). To support a claim for deliberate fabrication of evidence, 17 a plaintiff must, at a minimum, produce evidence that supports one of the following 18 propositions: (1) the defendants continued their investigation of an individual despite the fact 19 20 that they knew or should have known he was innocent; and (2) defendants used investigative techniques that were so coercive and abusive that they knew or should have known those 21 22 23 techniques would yield false information. Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1076. In his motion for summary judgment, Defendant Riley argues that he is entitled to 24 qualified immunity, in part, because the statement made by Defendant Riley which was provided 25 to the prosecuting attorney was not used by the Court in determining probable cause or charging 26 ORDER - 6 1 Plaintiff with the enhancement of committing a racially motivated or gang-related crime. ECF 2 No. 148, p. 7. 3 4 Plaintiff argues that the deposition of Timothy Davis is essential to his opposition to Defendant Riley’s motion for summary judgment because Mr. Riley’s qualified immunity 5 defense raises a factual question as to whether Defendant Riley’s allegedly fabricated evidence 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 was used by Mr. Davis to charge and/or prosecute Mr. Curtis. He further argues that such deposition testimony, along with the recently discovered material will: … . conclusively show that [Mr. Davis] charged Plaintiff with the gang-related enhancement at mainly Defendant Riley’s behest, and that Defendant Riley knowingly and intentionally provided [Mr. Davis] his affidavit containing the fabricated evidence in the midst of the criminal prosecution, intending and believing Mr. Davis would use said evidence in rebuttal to influence the jury’s decision. ECF No. 163, p. 3. In an abundance of caution and in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will grant Plaintiff additional time to pursue this additional discovery and will extend the discovery deadline until June 9, 2011 for the sole purpose of allowing Plaintiff to take the deposition of 17 Timothy Davis. The court will strike the noting date of Defendants’ motion for summary 18 19 judgment and Defendants may renew their motion after expiration of the new discovery deadline 20 date by filing and serving a motion that simply incorporates by reference all evidence and 21 arguments submitted in connection with the motion for summary judgment now pending before 22 the court or by filing a completely new motion. Upon Defendants’ renewal of their motion for 23 24 summary judgment, Plaintiff shall timely file his opposition. Plaintiff will not be granted any additional time for this purpose absent a compelling showing of good cause. 25 26 ORDER - 7 1 To facilitate discovery efforts, the Court anticipates that the parties will continue to 2 cooperate in good faith to schedule Mr. Davis’s deposition. If the parties cannot agree, the Court 3 suggests the following: 4 5 6 7 8 9 (a) The deposition shall take place at or near the Monroe Correctional Complex (MCC), organized with the assistance of authorities at the MCC. (b) If the parties cannot agree otherwise, the deposition shall be conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 28; this should be an independent party without any interest in the matter and Defendants should in good faith seek to allow or agree to use an employee of the Department of Corrections to perform these duties to alleviate the high cost of using a private business; in any event the taped deposition shall include the information indicated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4); 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 (c) The individual either chosen by the parties or appointed by the court to provide the oath at a deposition shall also operate two tape recorders to produce two original recordings of a deposition. (If the parties are unable to agree to an individual and before the court is willing to appoint an individual to administer oral depositions for Plaintiff, Plaintiff must explore other means to conduct discovery. Specifically, Plaintiff should consider Rule 31 to obtain information. The parties shall also note Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides alternatives to general discovery practice and procedure, and the court encourages the parties to mutually work out discovery complications. Parties should inform the court of stipulations made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 29). 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (d) Defendants’ counsel may attend the deposition and Defendants may record a deposition on his or her own equipment or Defendants may ask Plaintiff to produce a copy of the original tape at Defendants’ cost; Defendants may choose to stenographically record the deposition at their own cost. (e) At the end of the deposition, the plastic tab(s) on each original cassette shall be removed to help prevent the tape from being erased or recorded on a second time. (f) At the end of the deposition one original tape shall be placed in an envelope, sealed, and signed by the person chosen or appointed to give the oath; this tape recording shall be delivered in its sealed state to the Clerk of the Court for filing with the court record. 25 26 (g) If the testimony from the deposition is to be used by either party in a motion, pleading or any aspect of the trial, the party proposing to use that ORDER - 8 1 testimony must supply the court with a written transcript of the relevant portions of the deposition; 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (h) A transcript of the deposition shall not be filed with the court unless it is to be used by a party in a motion, pleading, or trial of this matter; a transcript of the deposition, in whole or in part, shall not be filed with the court unless the deponent has had the opportunity to review and make any changes or corrections he or she deems necessary. (i) Any challenges to the accuracy or trustworthiness of a transcript filed by a party can be raised in an objection served and filed by the opposing party in a responsive brief or appropriate and timely motion. (j) If the recording is of poor quality and the court cannot understand the tape and transcription, the recorded deposition shall not be utilized by either party for any purpose. 10 11 If the parties cannot agree, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) states that a party moving to compel 12 discovery must “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted 13 to confer with the party not making disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court 14 action.” Local Court Rule 37(a)(1)(A) explicitly states “[a] good faith effort to confer with a 15 party or person not making a disclosure or discovery requires a face-to-face meeting or a 16 telephonic conference.” The court will not entertain discovery motions that fail to include a 17 certification that a good faith attempt to confer was first made. 18 19 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (ECF No. 21 163) is GRANTED; the discovery deadline is extended until June 9, 2011 for the sole purpose 22 of allowing Plaintiff to take the deposition of Timothy Davis. The Clerk shall strike the 23 24 noting date of Defendant Riley’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 148). (2) At the expiration of the new discovery deadline of June 9, 2011, Defendant Riley 25 26 may either file an amended motion for summary judgment including a new brief and supporting documents, or simply renew their motion by filing a notice of such renewal incorporating by ORDER - 9 1 reference all arguments and evidence submitted in connection with their motion for summary 2 judgment filed on December 15, 2010. 3 4 (3) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for Defendants. 5 6 DATED this 9th day of May, 2011. A 7 8 Karen L. Strombom United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER - 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.