Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00573/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00573-21/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. BRODHEIM,

Plaintiff, No. 2:02-cv-0573 FCD KJN P

vs.

MICHAEL CRY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On May 18, 2010, this court directed the parties to file separate status reports

following the remand of this case by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Brodheim v. Cry, 584

F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009). The Ninth Circuit reversed the September 25, 2007 decision of the

District Court which had granted summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff’s retaliation

claim. The Ninth Circuit found that plaintiff’s retaliation claim was not barred on res judicata

grounds and that plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material

fact as to each of the required elements of the claim. The Ninth Circuit also reinstated plaintiff’s

state law claims. Accordingly, the action proceeds against defendants Michael Cry, Ana Ramirez

Palmer, and J. Valdez.

In their status report, defendants assert that this action should ultimately be

dismissed as moot because plaintiff seeks only equitable relief against defendants in their official

Case 2:02-cv-00573-FCD-KJN Document 213 Filed 06/09/10 Page 1 of 2
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

capacity, each defendant has now retired, and plaintiff is unable to demonstrate a continuation of

the alleged unconstitutional conduct by defendants’ successors. In response to plaintiff’s stated

intent to “seek leave to file an amended complaint, which will state no new causes of action” but

“will add a request for attorney’s fees and statutory damages under the Bane Civil Rights Act,”

defendants assert that the Eleventh Amendment bars any claim for damages against defendants in

their official capacities. Further, defendants assert that plaintiff’s state tort claims, which they

characterize as stated “in the alternative,” are barred by plaintiff’s failure to comply with the

California Tort Claims Act. 

The operative complaint, the Third Amended Complaint, was filed September 22,

2004, and includes a supplemental document. (Dkt. No. 54.) The court must resolve whether

plaintiff should be granted leave to file a further amended complaint before scheduling the

remainder of this action.

Accordingly, plaintiff shall, on or before July 2, 2010, file and serve a fullybriefed request for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, along with the proposed Fourth

Amended Complaint. Defendants shall file and serve a response within fourteen days after

service of the request. Plaintiff may file and serve a reply within seven days after service of

defendants’ response. Upon review of this briefing, the court will determine whether to schedule

a hearing on this matter before rendering a decision.

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 8, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

brod0573.aft.app.II

Case 2:02-cv-00573-FCD-KJN Document 213 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 2