Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04277/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04277-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALIK JONES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M. EVANS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

MALIK JONES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

L. WASHINGTON, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-4277 CW (PR)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE

TO ATTEND DEPOSITIONS AND

ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS

(Docket nos. 59, 70, 71, 73)

No. C 09-3003 CW (PR)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE

TO ATTEND DEPOSITIONS

(Docket no. 17)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Malik Jones, a state prisoner currently located at

High Desert State Prison (HDSP), filed his original pro se civil

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation

of his constitutional rights while incarcerated at Salinas Valley

State Prison (SVSP) in Case No. C 07-4277 CW (PR). 

In its Order dated July 2, 2009, the Court found two

cognizable claims against Defendant Bailey: (1) that Defendant

Bailey violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment right to be free from

excessive force when Defendant Bailey pushed Plaintiff out of his

wheelchair during a verbal altercation; and (2) that, on May 15,

2003, Defendant Bailey violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights

by acting with deliberate indifference to his safety by creating

and distributing a "false 128G chonol [sic] with fabricated

information on Plaintiff stating Plaintiff was a child molester/had

Case 4:07-cv-04277-CW Document 74 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

2

lewd and or lascivious crimes against children" in an effort to

"get Plaintiff killed or seriously injured." (July 2, 2009 Order

in Case No. C 07-4277 CW (PR) at 2-3.)

The Court also identified two cognizable Eighth Amendment

claims against Defendants Washington, Lang and Contrazs for

excessive force and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical

needs during his transfer from SVSP to HDSP. Plaintiff alleges

that on July 7, 2006, Defendant Lang attempted to break Plaintiff's

thumb and that an unnamed officer threw Plaintiff to the ground,

causing him pain and injury. (July 2, 2009 Order in Case No.

C 07-4277 CW (PR) at 3.) Defendants Washington and Lang attempted

to break Plaintiff's wrist; and Defendants Washington, Lang,

Contrazs and Doe threw Plaintiff on the ground, "causing more pain

and injury to [his] head." (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

Lang used a car door repeatedly to slam Plaintiff's knees and that

an unnamed officer slammed the car door so that it would hit

Plaintiff in the head. (Id.) Defendants Lang and Doe forcibly made

Plaintiff swallow a liquid substance while they laughed at him. 

(Id.)

 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in Case No. C 07-4277 CW

(PR) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a). They argued that

Plaintiff had improperly asserted unrelated claims that had no

question of fact common to all Defendants as required by Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). 

The Court severed the misjoined parties in Case No. C 07-4277

CW (PR). (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff's claims for excessive force and

for deliberate indifference against Defendant Bailey remained in

Case No. C 07-4277 CW (PR). The Clerk of the Court was directed to

Case 4:07-cv-04277-CW Document 74 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

3

open a new case entitled Jones v. Washington, Lang, Contrazs (Case

No. C 09-3003 CW (PR)) to address Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment

claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference to his

medical needs against the named Defendants. (Id. at 5.) The Court

also granted Plaintiff's request to amend his complaint to

substitute Officer P. Brown for Officer Jane Doe, who he alleged

participated in the incident where he was brutalized during his

transfer to HDSP. The Court denied Plaintiff's request to amend

his complaint to add a retaliation claim against unnamed HDSP

officials. Defendants have filed their answers in both cases.

Before the Court is Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss for Failure

to Attend Depositions." The motion to dismiss in Case No.

C 09-3003 CW (PR) explains the severance but otherwise makes the

same arguments as the motion to dismiss in Case No. C 07-4277 CW

(PR). Defendants in both cases move for dismissal under Rule 30 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; however, as dismissal is not

an available sanction under Rule 30, the Court construes their

request as a motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b). Plaintiff opposes

the motion. 

Also before the Court in Case No. C 07-4277 CW (PR) are

Plaintiff's "Motion of Imminent Danger" and "Motion for

Clarification," which are construed as requests for leave to amend

his complaint. Plaintiff has also filed a "Motion Requesting Court

to Send Exhibits/Declaration of Motions etc.," which is construed

as a motion requesting copies of documents from the case file.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff refused to leave his cell to attend his deposition

Case 4:07-cv-04277-CW Document 74 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

4

duly noticed for September 17, 2009. (Defs. Mot. to Change Time to

File a Dispositive Mot., Ex. A.) Plaintiff gave Defendants'

counsel a memorandum stating, "This deposition was postspond [sic]

pending court reconsideration for appoint[ment] of counsel . . . ." 

(Id.)

In an Order dated October 28, 2009, the Court denied

Plaintiff's motion to stay the deposition and denied his fifth

request for appointment of counsel. (Oct. 28, 2009 Order in Case

No. C 07-04277 CW (PR) at 2.) The Court directed Defendants to

notice another deposition of Plaintiff and ordered Plaintiff to

"testify at the properly noticed deposition even if he is not

represented by counsel." (Id.) The Court further stated that if

Plaintiff did not testify at the deposition "his complaint will be

dismissed." (Id.) 

Defendants' counsel properly noticed Plaintiff's deposition

for November 19, 2009. (McDonough Decl., Ex. C.) Defendants

allege Plaintiff refused to attend that deposition without being

transported to it in a wheelchair, although "Plaintiff was no

longer authorized to use a wheelchair" according to a decision by

medical staff. (Mot. to Dismiss at 5.) Therefore, Defendants

request that this case be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to

attend two properly noticed depositions.

Plaintiff claims that he was physically unable to attend his

deposition because prison officials had improperly taken his

wheelchair. He argues that he needs a wheelchair because he

"suffers from back/spinal trauma which severely limits his

mobility." (Mot. of Imm. Danger at 1.) He alleges that in 2005,

doctors examined him and "his wheelchair use was made permanent." 

Case 4:07-cv-04277-CW Document 74 Filed 07/20/10 Page 4 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

5

(Id.) Plaintiff claims that, on October 26, 2009, HDSP officials

took his wheelchair. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states that he could

not use the walker issued by prison medical staff to get to his

deposition because his permanently disabled right arm makes the

walker only useful for moving around inside his cell. (Opp'n ¶ 5.) 

He claims that the wheelchair was returned to him on February 7,

2010, proving it "never should have been taken in the first place." 

(Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff also claims that on November 19, 2009, HDSP

officials "stated they were going to get Plaintiff a wheelchair so

that he could go to and attend his deposition of 11-19-09 left and

never returned or came back with a wheelchair . . . ." (Pl.'s Nov.

25, 2009 Letter at 1.) Therefore, Plaintiff contends that he was

unable to attend the November 19, 2009 deposition.

A plaintiff must prosecute his case with "reasonable

diligence" to avoid dismissal. Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542

F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff's complaint alleges that

Defendants used excessive force on him on a specific occasion and

were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The

amount of force used by Defendants and the medical care Plaintiff

did or did not receive for any resulting injuries as well as the

circumstances surrounding such allegations are critical to

determining the viability of Plaintiff's claims. Moreover,

Plaintiff's evidence will largely consist of his version of the

events. Defendants are entitled to discover Plaintiff's version of

the events in order properly to evaluate the case, the possibility

of a dispositive motion and/or settlement, and their trial

strategy. 

Here, Defendants' counsel traveled to HDSP twice to take

Case 4:07-cv-04277-CW Document 74 Filed 07/20/10 Page 5 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

6

Plaintiff's duly noticed deposition; however, Plaintiff failed to

attend both depositions. It is unclear whether Plaintiff refused

or was physically unable to attend the second deposition. As

mentioned above, Plaintiff claims that he could not walk and needed

a wheelchair to attend that deposition. Defendants did not file a

reply refuting Plaintiff. But neither has Plaintiff provided the

Court with doctors' notes he claims he has showing that he needed a

wheelchair. Given this ambiguity, the Court will give Plaintiff

one final chance to sit for a complete deposition, as directed

below. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss

in Case Nos. C 07-4277 CW (PR) and C 09-3003 CW (PR).

II. Other Pending Motions 

The Court construes Plaintiff's "Motion of Imminent Danger" as

a request to amend his complaint in Case No. C 07-4277 CW (PR) to

add a claim relating to his conditions of confinement at HDSP. It

construes Plaintiff's "Motion for Clarification" as a request to

amend his complaint in Case No. C 07-4277 CW (PR) to add

retaliation claims against corrections officers at SVSP. This is

Plaintiff's fourth attempt to amend his complaint. As mentioned

above, Plaintiff's previous request to amend the complaint to

substitute Officer P. Brown for Officer Jane Doe was granted.

Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Plaintiff may amend as of right at any time prior to the filing of

a responsive pleading and thereafter only with leave of court. 

Leave must be freely granted "when justice so requires." (Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15.) Where a plaintiff seeks to amend after a responsive

pleading has already been served, however, the decision whether to

grant leave to amend is committed to the sound discretion of the

Case 4:07-cv-04277-CW Document 74 Filed 07/20/10 Page 6 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

7

trial court. Waits v. Weller, 653 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Leave need not be granted where the amendment of the complaint

would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad

faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay. 

See Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir.

1994); Roberts v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 661 F.2d 796, 798 (9th

Cir. 1981). The trial court's discretion to deny the motion is

particularly broad where . . . a plaintiff has previously been

granted leave to amend. Griggs v. Pace American Group, Inc., 170

F.3d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 1999).

In its Order dated March 12, 2010, the Court denied

Plaintiff's first "Motion of Imminent Danger," which was also

construed as a request to amend his complaint. (March 12, 2010

Order in Case No. C 07-4277 CW (PR) at 9.) It informed Plaintiff

that if he seeks to bring an action in federal court about the

conditions of confinement at HDSP, he must file a civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of

California. Similarly, Plaintiff's pending request to amend his

complaint is DENIED without prejudice to filing a new action in the

Eastern District relating to the alleged conditions of confinement

at HDSP. 

In Plaintiff's "Motion for Clarification," he seeks leave to

amend his complaint to include claims that officers at SVSP

retaliated against him for filing this case. "Within the prison

context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five

basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some

adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's

protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's

Case 4:07-cv-04277-CW Document 74 Filed 07/20/10 Page 7 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

8

exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not

reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal." Rhodes v.

Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). 

To prove retaliation, a plaintiff must show that the defendants

took adverse action against him or her that "would have chilled or

silenced a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment

activities." White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1228 (9th Cir. 2000)

(citing Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283,

1300 (9th Cir. 1999)). 

Plaintiff's retaliation claims are detailed in his July 22,

2009 filing (docket no. 46). Although it is titled "Amended

Complaint," Plaintiff did not obtain permission to amend his

complaint; therefore, the Court construes his pending "Motion for

Clarification" as a motion for leave to amend his complaint. 

Plaintiff alleges first that on or about February 13, 2003,

Officers Sandquist and Bocello assaulted him, falsely accused him

of assaulting an officer and possessing a knife, held him chained

and taped in a prison cage without cause for two days, and forced

him into administrative segregation, all because he was prosecuting

this civil rights action. Second, Plaintiff claims Warden Evans

and Officers Ramirez, Bocello, Martines and Doe, on or around July

7, 2006, conspired to kidnap him with an unwarranted transfer to

HDSP and failed to intervene to stop the transfer in the weeks

preceding it, also in retaliation for Plaintiff filing this case. 

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for retaliation. 

The alleged events occurred several months or years before

Plaintiff filed his claim. The majority of the officers implicated

by Plaintiff in his July 22, 2009 filing were not involved in

Case 4:07-cv-04277-CW Document 74 Filed 07/20/10 Page 8 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

9

either of the occurrences that gave rise to Plaintiff's cases

against Defendant Bailey and Defendants Washington, Lang, Contrazs

and Brown. In addition, Plaintiff does allege any nexus between

the officers' actions and his civil rights litigation. See Huskey

v. City of San Jose, 204 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir. 2000) (retaliation

claim cannot rest on the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter

hoc, i.e., "after this, therefore because of this"). While

Plaintiff claims that the correctional officers' actions had no

legitimate administrative purpose, there is no indication that the

officers would not have acted as they did even if Plaintiff had not

filed a civil rights claim. Cf. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802,

808-09 (9th Cir. 1995) (inmate who alleged that prison officials

transferred him from one prison to another in retaliation for his

exercise of his First Amendment rights in giving an interview to a

television network did not establish that the transfer was effected

for retaliatory reasons, and was not justified by neutral

institutional objectives). 

Even if Plaintiff's retaliation claim was cognizable, filing

an amended complaint at this late date -- almost eight months after

Defendants filed their responsive pleading -- would cause them

undue prejudice and create undue delay. Accordingly, Plaintiff's

request for leave to amend his complaint is DENIED. Should

Plaintiff wish to pursue these claims, he may initiate a separate

litigation by filing a new complaint. 

Finally, Plaintiff's "Motion Requesting Court to Send

Exhibits/Declaration of Motions etc." is construed as a motion

requesting copies of documents from the case file for the exhibits

Case 4:07-cv-04277-CW Document 74 Filed 07/20/10 Page 9 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

10

and declarations specified in the motion. Because he needs these

documents to pursue a civil rights claim in the Eastern District,

the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for copies of documents and

directs the Clerk to send copies of the documents specified below.

CONCLUSION

1. The Court DENIES Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss for

Failure to Attend Depositions" (docket no. 59 in Case No. C 07-4277

CW (PR) and docket no. 17 in Case No. C 09-3003 CW (PR)). The

Court directs Defendants to notice another deposition of Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff shall testify at the properly noticed deposition even if

he is not represented by counsel. If he does not complete this

deposition, the Court will dismiss both actions (Case Nos.

C 07-4277 CW (PR) and C 09-3003 CW (PR)) with prejudice for failure

to prosecute under Rule 41(b), failure to comply with a court order

under Rule 37(b), and failure to attend his deposition under Rule

37(d). Unless there are valid security concerns, the Court

encourages HDSP prison officials to provide Plaintiff with a

wheelchair if he refuses to attend his deposition without one, so

that time and expenses are not wasted, the deposition can go

forward and the cases can be dismissed if it does not. However,

even if prison officials do not provide a wheelchair, the Court

will dismiss Plaintiff's cases if he fails to attend and complete

the deposition without proof that he was physically unable to do

so.

2. The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's "Motion of

Imminent Danger" (docket no. 70 in Case No. C 07-4277 CW (PR)),

construed as a request to amend his complaint in Case No. C 07-4277

CW (PR). Plaintiff may file a new action in the Eastern District

Case 4:07-cv-04277-CW Document 74 Filed 07/20/10 Page 10 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

G:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.07\Jones07-4277&09-3003.denyMTD.frm 11

of California relating to the alleged conditions of confinement at

HDSP.

3. The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's "Motion of

Clarification" (docket no. 71 in Case No. C 07-4277 CW (PR)),

construed as a request to amend his complaint in Case No. C 07-4277

CW (PR). Plaintiff may file a new action making these allegations.

4. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's "Motion Requesting Court to

Send Exhibits/Declaration of Motions etc." (docket no. 73 in Case

No. C 07-4277 CW (PR)), construed as a motion requesting copies of

documents from the case file. The Court directs the Clerk to send

copies of the following documents from Case No. C 07-4277 CW (PR)

to Plaintiff:

a. "Motion of imminent danger" (docket no. 56);

b. "Motion informing the Court of incident in re

deposition of 11-19-09" (docket no. 57); and

c. "Declaration of Malik Jones to Add Declaration in

Support of In Re Motion filed 11/22/09" (docket no. 58).

5. This Order terminates Docket nos. 59, 70, 71 and 73 in

Case No. C 07-4277 CW (PR) and Docket no. 17 in Case No. C 09-3003

CW (PR).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 7/20/2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04277-CW Document 74 Filed 07/20/10 Page 11 of 11