Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-02067/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-02067-1/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

- 1 - 03cv2067-IEG (LSP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK R. KOCH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 03-CV-2067 - IEG (LSP)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); and

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

[Doc. Nos. 235, 237]

vs.

BILL LOCKYER, et al.,

Defendants.

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on March 25, 2010. [Doc. Nos. 235, 237]. For the

reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES both motions.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, formerly incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“Donovan”),

brought this suit on October 17, 2003, alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

As amended, the complaint asserted that Plaintiff’s Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment

rights were violated when Donovan prison officials forcibly collected DNA samples from Plaintiff.

The Court eventually dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend Plaintiff’s causes of action

for violations of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. [See Doc. Nos. 79, 141]. The Court

then granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the Fourth Amendment claim, finding that

Case 3:03-cv-02067-LAB-LSP Document 242 Filed 04/14/10 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

- 2 - 03cv2067-IEG (LSP)

Defendants did not violate Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, or if they did, that Defendants were

entitled to qualified immunity. [Doc. No. 205]. Plaintiff appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part

and reversed in part, concluding that although Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment

rights by forcibly taking his DNA under the alleged circumstances, they were nonetheless entitled to

qualified immunity against damages. [Doc. No. 226]. According to the Ninth Circuit, given the

complexity and novelty of the issues presented, reasonable officials could not have understood that

their actions violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. [Id.] Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of certiorari

to the Supreme Court of the United States was denied on February 22, 2010. (See Pl. Notice & Motion

for Award of All Allowable Costs and Fees, Ex. C [Doc. No. 231].)

On March 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed the present motions. In his first motion, Plaintiff asks the

Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the state law claims for

assault (Cal. Penal Code § 240 and Cal. Civil Code § 43) and battery (Cal. Penal Code § 242). [See

Doc. No. 235]. In his second motion, Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on his Fourth Amendment

claim as well as his claims for assault, battery, and unlawful use of force. [See Doc. No. 237].

DISCUSSION

I. Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)

Section 1367(a) provides that “the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all

other claims that are so related to [federal claims] that they form part of the same case or controversy

under Article III.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). In the present case, there is no basis for Plaintiff’s request for

supplemental jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint does not allege any “other

claims” besides the federal claims. (See Third Amended Complaint, at 38, 51 [Doc. No. 103].)

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

II. Motion for summary judgment

With respect to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the Court has previously granted

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim. [See Doc. No. 205]. The

Court, however, may reconsider its grant of summary judgment under either Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment). See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Reconsideration

Case 3:03-cv-02067-LAB-LSP Document 242 Filed 04/14/10 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 - 03cv2067-IEG (LSP)

is appropriate if the Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error

or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling

law.” Id. at 1263 (citation omitted); accord Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc. v. Applied

Materials, Inc., 922 F. Supp. 1439, 1442 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (“A moving party may renew a motion for

summary judgment notwithstanding denial of an earlier motion by showing a different set of facts or

some other reason justifying renewal of the motion.”).

In the present case, Plaintiff cannot point to any ground that would support reconsideration.

As already noted, this Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the

Fourth Amendment claim, finding that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment

rights, or if they did, that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. [Doc. No. 205]. Although

Plaintiff correctly notes that the Ninth Circuit subsequently determined that Defendants did violate

his Fourth Amendment rights, the Ninth Circuit nonetheless affirmed this Court’s ultimate disposition

by finding that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity against damages. [Doc. No. 226].

Accordingly, the Court finds no ground that would justify reconsidering its prior ruling on Plaintiff’s

Fourth Amendment claim. Likewise, with respect to Plaintiff’s state law claims, although Plaintiff

correctly notes that qualified immunity does not apply to state law claims, see Cousins v. Lockyer,

568 F.3d 1063, 1072 (9th Cir. 2009), none of these claims were part of Plaintiff’s amended complaint

and therefore cannot form the basis for a summary judgment motion.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES both motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 14, 2010

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:03-cv-02067-LAB-LSP Document 242 Filed 04/14/10 Page 3 of 3