Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00363/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00363-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESHAWN MALONE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0363 FCD KJM P

vs.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

MARTINEZ, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two matters are before the court.

I. Defendant Martinez’s Motion For Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists “no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Under summary judgment practice, the moving party 

always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district

court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of

“the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it

believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material

fact.

Case 2:03-cv-00363-FCD-KJM Document 68 Filed 06/18/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “[W]here the

nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary

judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the ‘pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.’” Id. Indeed, summary judgment should be

entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a

showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on

which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See id. at 322. “[A] complete failure of

proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all

other facts immaterial.” Id. In such a circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, “so

long as whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary

judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is satisfied.” Id. at 323.

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the

opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. See

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to

establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the

allegations or denials of its pleadings but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the

form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the

dispute exists. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party

must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome

of the suit under the governing law, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.

1987), and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

return a verdict for the nonmoving party, see Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433,

1436 (9th Cir. 1987).

In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party

need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the

Case 2:03-cv-00363-FCD-KJM Document 68 Filed 06/18/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing

versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the “purpose of summary

judgment is to ‘pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a

genuine need for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory

committee’s note on 1963 amendments).

In resolving the summary judgment motion, the court examines the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if

any. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed. See Anderson,

477 U.S. at 255. All reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the

court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. 

Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party’s obligation to

produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See Richards v. Nielsen

Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff’d, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir.

1987). Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party “must do more than simply

show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the record taken

as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no

‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted).

On June 4, 2005, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a

motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rand v. Rowland, 154

F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999); Klingele v.

Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988).

Plaintiff alleges as follows in his October 20, 2004 amended complaint, which is

signed under the penalty of perjury. In 2002, he requested that defendant Martinez retrieve a

complaint from storage for plaintiff, which Martinez failed to do. Plaintiff asserts that as a result

of Martinez’s not providing plaintiff with a copy of his complaint, the limitations period

applicable to a particular state law claim may have expired. 

Case 2:03-cv-00363-FCD-KJM Document 68 Filed 06/18/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 As noted above, plaintiff alleges that a limitations period for a state law claim may

have expired prior to plaintiff’s being able to assert that claim because defendant Martinez did

not retrieve plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff does not indicate the limitations period did expire,

only that it might have. Furthermore, plaintiff fails to assert how long after he asked Martinez to

retrieve his complaint the limitations period expired. Therefore, plaintiff has not alleged facts

demonstrating that he could not get his complaint on file before any limitations period expired.

4

In this court’s May 16, 2005 order, the court found that plaintiff’s complaint

states a cognizable claim against defendant Martinez for denial of his First Amendment right to

access courts. 

Defendant Martinez asserts she should be granted summary judgment because

plaintiff cannot show she denied plaintiff access to the courts. At worst, argues Martinez,

plaintiff can show that Martinez denied plaintiff access to a partially completed complaint. 

Martinez claims because plaintiff could have redrafted the portions of the complaint that was

misplaced, finished the complaint, and then filed it, plaintiff was not denied access. Plaintiff

does not assert that Martinez prevented him from redrafting those portions of his complaint that

he did not receive back from Martinez. His only response to Martinez’s characterization of the

partially completed complaint as misplaced is to speculate that Martinez intentionally withheld

the document. 

Plaintiff has a right to access the courts, see, e.g., Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,

821 (1977), which, on the evidence before this court, was not abridged. While the loss or

intentional taking of plaintiff’s complaint might provide some basis for relief under California

law, plaintiff has not shown that the loss of the partially completed complaint kept him from

accessing any court in any respect.1

 Plaintiff has not shown that he could not re-draft the

complaint or even that doing so would have been inconvenient. Defendant Martinez’s motion

for summary judgment should be granted.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To Amend

On February 15, 2007 plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a second

amended complaint. The court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion and it appears that the only

Case 2:03-cv-00363-FCD-KJM Document 68 Filed 06/18/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

material change plaintiff wishes to make to his complaint is that he would like to seek damages. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) the court can grant leave to amend “when justice so

requires.” Given that the court is recommending that defendant Martinez’s motion for summary

judgment be granted, and that nothing presented by plaintiff in his motion for leave to amend or

his proposed second amended complaint would change the court’s finding, the court will deny

plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend without prejudice to renewal if this recommendation is not

adopted. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998) (court need not

grant leave to amend if amendment would be futile).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s

February 15, 2007 motion for leave to amend is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant Martinez’s October 30, 2006 motion for summary judgment be

granted; and

2. This action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: June 18, 2007. 

1/malo0363.57

Case 2:03-cv-00363-FCD-KJM Document 68 Filed 06/18/07 Page 5 of 5