Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01500/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01500-11/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

John Fratus, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sergeant Peterson, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1500-ROS

ORDER

Defendants Luna, Cortez, Hamilton, Robertson, and Solano moved for summary

judgment. (Doc. 71-1). In their reply, Defendants Cortez, Hamilton, Roberston, and Solano

concede “that triable issues of [] fact remain concerning [Plaintiff’s] Eighth Amendment

claim.” (Doc. 81). Thus, summary judgment regarding those Defendants will be denied.

But Defendant Luna still seeks summary judgment, arguing Plaintiff has not sufficiently

countered the evidence that Defendant Luna was not involved in the assault. Viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Defendant Luna is not entitled to summary

judgment.

I. Summary Judgment Must Be Denied

According to Plaintiff, on July 12, 2006, Officer Luna beat, punched, and kicked him

“in the head and body.” (Doc. 79 at 6). During his deposition, Plaintiff was asked how he

knew Officer Luna was involved in the assault. Plaintiff stated the officer in question was

Case 1:08-cv-01500-ROS Document 83 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 In fact, Plaintiff stated he knew “for a fact, 100 percent that this officer—his name

tag stated, Luna.” (Doc. 79 at 149).

2

 During his deposition, Plaintiff described the physical characteristics of the officer

in question. If those physical characteristics do not match Officer Luna, Defendants should

have pointed that out rather than claiming Plaintiff made inconsistent statements.

- 2 -

wearing a name tag identifying him as “Luna.”1

 (Doc. 79 at 148). The written report

regarding the incident identified that officer as Officer Elze. When confronted with a copy

of the report during his deposition, Plaintiff expressed some confusion about the identity of

that particular officer. Officer Luna now claims he is entitled to summary judgment because

Plaintiff has not explained the inconsistency between his deposition, where he allegedly

expressed some doubt about Officer Luna’s identity, and his declaration where he stated

unequivocally that Officer Luna was involved in the assault. Having reviewed the deposition

transcript and declaration, there is no conflict. 

Throughout his deposition, Plaintiff stated he believed Officer Luna was involved in

the assault. For example, Plaintiff testified that “the officer who I believe to be Luna . . . was

kicking me, punching me, whistling . . . and whistling and punching me and kicking me all

over my face and all over my body.” (Doc. 79 at 165). In his declaration, Plaintiff stated he

was “thrown on the floor and beaten, punched, kicked in the head and face and body by

Luna, Solano, Cortez, and Hamilton.” (Doc. 79 at 52). There is no conflict between Plaintiff

testifying an individual who he believed to be Luna assaulted him and then later providing

a declaration stating Luna assaulted him. There apparently is some disagreement about the

true identity of the individual involved in the assault.2

 But that disagreement must be

resolved at trial.

II. Request For 56(d) Continuance Is Moot

Plaintiff filed a motion claiming he had not been afforded adequate time to conduct

discovery. Plaintiff requested the Court either deny the motion for summary judgment or

grant additional time for Plaintiff to obtain affidavits. As the motion for summary judgment

will be denied, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as moot.

Case 1:08-cv-01500-ROS Document 83 Filed 09/27/11 Page 2 of 3
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 -

III. “Motion To Clarify Misunderstanding” Will Be Denied

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to “clarify [the] misunderstanding” regarding the

alleged discrepancy between his deposition testimony and his declaration. There is no need

for this clarification and the motion will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 71), the Motion Pursuant

to Rule 56(d) (Doc. 80), and Motion to Clarify (Doc. 82) are DENIED. 

Dated this 26th day of September, 2011.

Case 1:08-cv-01500-ROS Document 83 Filed 09/27/11 Page 3 of 3