Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02631/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02631-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT ALAN GIBBS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BOYD, et. al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-2631 KJM-CMK 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on a review of the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action on December 18, 

2013, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. The matter was referred to a United States 

magistrate judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 18, 

2015, defendant Brian Boyd and defendant DeWayne Little (collectively, “defendants”) filed a 

motion for summary judgment with the magistrate judge, arguing plaintiff’s arrest and the entry into 

his home was not a Fourth Amendment violation, as a matter of law. ECF No. 43.1

 Plaintiff filed 

no opposition. On September 9, 2016, the magistrate judge filed the pending findings and 

 1

 Findings and recommendations on a separate motion for summary judgment filed by other 

defendants in this action are pending before this court. ECF No. 52. 

Case 2:13-cv-02631-KJM-DMC Document 73 Filed 09/30/16 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 

27 

28 

2

recommendations in which he recommends granting defendants’ motion. ECF No. 67. The findings 

and recommendations were served on the parties, with a notice that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations must be filed within fourteen days. On September 19, 2016, plaintiff filed 

timely objections, which brought the matter before this court. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court conducted a de novo review of the case. For the reasons 

discussed below, the court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations and refers the matter 

back to the magistrate judge for further analysis. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Service of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

In plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, 

plaintiff contends he was not properly served with defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Defendants’ motion is accompanied by a certificate of service attesting plaintiff was served with the 

motion on December 18, 2015 at P.O. Box 686, Shasta, California, which plaintiff acknowledges was 

his address of record at the time. The findings and recommendations correctly conclude defendants 

properly served the motion on plaintiff’s address of record, though the findings and recommendations 

themselves recite an incorrect address. See ECF No. 1 at 2. Thus, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion and 

despite the error in the findings and recommendations, defendants’ motion was properly served. The 

court thus turns to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations on the substance of 

defendants’ motion. 

B. Relevant Factual Background 

The facts the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations rely on are 

incomplete. The court here reviews in summary fashion the key facts it has gleaned from the 

plaintiff’s complaint, interrogatory responses in the record, defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment and attached exhibits, and plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations. 

On December, 23, 2012, plaintiff’s car was stuck in snow on the highway so he called 

the Shasta Sherriff’s Department for help. Deputy Edwards and Sgt. Jackson responded and found 

plaintiff walking down the highway with a shotgun. According to Deputy Edwards’ report, plaintiff 

seemed mentally unstable and angry. After dropping plaintiff off at a Motel 6 (as plaintiff requested), 

Case 2:13-cv-02631-KJM-DMC Document 73 Filed 09/30/16 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 

27 

28 

3

Deputy Edwards took plaintiff’s shotgun for safekeeping, over plaintiff’s objection. Deputy Edwards 

later ran plaintiff’s criminal background using the standardized database known as CLETS and saw 

the database reflected plaintiff had a prior felony conviction, which meant plaintiff had been a felon 

in possession of a weapon; a violation of California law. 

Deputy Edwards filed a report with the District Attorney, who then filed criminal 

charges against plaintiff for being a felon in possession of a weapon, and a warrant was issued for his 

arrest. Within days of the seizure of his gun, plaintiff informed Sgt. Jackson and employees at the 

District Attorney’s office that plaintiff did not have a felony on his record; the conviction at issue was 

a “wobbler” that had been reduced to a misdemeanor. Plaintiff claims he faxed over documents that 

prove his conviction was a misdemeanor, but Sgt. Jackson contends the documents were unclear. 

More than three months later, on March 8, 2013, Fish and Game Wardens Boyd and 

Little executed the Shasta County warrant at plaintiff’s home and arrested him. Little and Boyd 

initially sought to contact plaintiff about a complaint that he was involved in “illegal streambed 

alteration,” but then discovered the warrant for his arrest and chose to execute it. After his arrest, 

plaintiff spent three days in jail and then posted bail. The felon in possession charge was dropped at 

arraignment. Plaintiff now alleges Sgt. Jackson, Deputy Edwards, Wardens Boyd and Little, and the 

Shasta County Sheriff’s Department violated his constitutional rights. 

II. REVIEW OF THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This court conducted a de novo review of the case, as required under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations do not provide sufficient analysis for this court to 

conclude they survive the required review. 

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The findings 

and recommendations are therefore based on portions of plaintiff’s verified complaint and evidence 

defendants provided.2

 In framing plaintiff’s claims, the findings and recommendations do not 

 2

 Plaintiff’s complaint is signed under penalty of perjury. ECF No. 1 at 2. Therefore, the 

complaint “may be used as an opposing affidavit” on this summary judgment motion to the extent it 

is “based on personal knowledge and set[s] forth specific facts admissible in evidence.” Schroeder v. 

McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Case 2:13-cv-02631-KJM-DMC Document 73 Filed 09/30/16 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 

27 

28 

4

adequately incorporate relevant allegations from plaintiff’s complaint, and consequently provide an 

incomplete analysis. The findings and recommendations summarily conclude plaintiff’s claims are 

based on an unlawful arrest and search of his home, and then go on to conclude the arrest was proper 

because it was done in reliance on a “facially valid warrant.” However, the findings and 

recommendations omit relevant parts of plaintiff’s complaint that cast doubt on the facial validity of 

the warrant and the reasonableness of defendants’ reliance on it. On page four of the complaint, 

plaintiff asserts he was charged with being a felon in possession of a gun, even though he was not a 

felon when he possessed the gun. This invalid charge then led to the issuance of an arrest warrant for 

a crime plaintiff did not commit. Plaintiff outlines his efforts to communicate the error to both the 

Shasta Sheriff’s Department and the District Attorney’s office. The record also demonstrates there 

was a three month lapse between the issuance of this arrest warrant and its execution, during which 

the invalid basis for the warrant was never addressed, despite plaintiff’s efforts. Lastly, the record 

shows plaintiff’s “felon in possession” charge was dropped at arraignment. 

Based on these facts, the court finds there may be a triable issue over the validity of 

plaintiff’s arrest warrant and the reasonableness of plaintiff’s arrest. At a minimum, the question 

requires further analysis to properly resolve defendant’s motion. Additionally, Warden Boyd and 

Warden Little’s claim of additional reasons for entering plaintiff’s property, independent of the arrest 

warrant, does not merit short-circuiting the analysis. Accordingly, the court refers the matter back to 

the magistrate judge for further analysis and explanation. 

Furthermore, despite plaintiff’s failure to timely oppose defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment, the court exercises its discretion to grant plaintiff additional time to do so. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (“if a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly 

address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may: (1) give an 

opportunity to properly support or address the fact . . .; or (4) issue any other appropriate order.”) In 

this circuit, courts extend leniency towards pro se litigants that violate technical or procedural rules. 

See e.g., Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013); Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 

(9th Cir.1986). Thus, in the interest of justice, and considering plaintiff’s pro se status, the court 

grants plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days to file an opposition to defendants’ motion, and to 

Case 2:13-cv-02631-KJM-DMC Document 73 Filed 09/30/16 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 

27 

28 

5

include relevant evidence. Defendants will then have seven (7) days to file a reply to plaintiff’s 

opposition. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 9, 2016, are not adopted; and 

2. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with 

this Order. 

3. This Order resolves ECF No. 67. 

DATED: September 30, 2016. 

Case 2:13-cv-02631-KJM-DMC Document 73 Filed 09/30/16 Page 5 of 5