Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00268/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00268-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Johnny Gabriel Valenzuela, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

D. Hurley, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-0268-PHX-RCB (JFM)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff Johnny Gabriel Valenzuela brought this civil rights action pro se under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 against Mesa Police Officers D. Hurley and S. Cervantes for alleged excessive

force (Doc. 1). Plaintiff is now represented by counsel (Doc. 8). Before the Court is

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15). Despite service of the motion on

Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded to the motion. However, Plaintiff’s

counsel has filed discovery requests.

The Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants’ motion should not be

treated as unopposed.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claim arose on January 2, 2011, when Defendants stopped the car in which

he was riding and ordered him out of the car (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleged that when he stepped

out of the car, Defendants tazored him in the thigh; immediately forced him face down onto

the ground; and punched, kicked, and kneed him in the back and head nearly rendering him

Case 2:11-cv-00268-RCB Document 33 Filed 02/08/12 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 -

unconscious (id.).

On September 15, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking

judgment on the ground that Plaintiff’s claim is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 486-87 (1994) (Doc. 15). The motion is supported by affidavits from each Defendant,

who attest that they observed Plaintiff with a substance consistent with methamphetamine,

that he did not comply with commands to exit the car, that he was combative and punched

officers, and that they used only the amount of force necessary to remove him from the car

and secure him in handcuffs (Doc. 16, Ex. 1, Cervantes Aff. ¶¶ 5-7; Ex. 2, Hurley Aff. ¶¶ 4-

8). Defendants also submit copies of state court documents showing that Plaintiff pled guilty

to possession of dangerous drugs and aggravated assault (id., Exs. 5-6). Based on this

evidence, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s excessive-force claim is barred because it stems

from the same facts that led to his guilty plea and success in this action would necessarily

imply the invalidity of his aggravated assault conviction (Doc. 15 at 5-7).

As stated, Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion. 

II. Order to Show Cause

Under the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure, service may be made by

electronic means using the court’s transmission facilities, in this case, the Court’s Case

Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E) and

5(b)(3); LRCiv. 5.5 (incorporating the District of Arizona’s Electronic Case Filing

Administrative Policies and Procedure Manual, § 2(D)(2) & (3), which provides that service

is accomplished through the Notice of Electronic Filings (NEFs) generated upon filings made

through CM/ECF).

The certificate of service accompanying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

indicates that service was made electronically pursuant to Rule 5(b)(2)(E) and 5(b)(3), i.e.,

the motion was transmitted using CM/ECF (Doc. 15 at 7). On the Court’s docket, the

electronic receipt for the summary judgment motion reflects that it was electronically mailed

to Plaintiff’s counsel at bob@dosseylaw.com and alyssa@dosseylaw.com on September 15,

Case 2:11-cv-00268-RCB Document 33 Filed 02/08/12 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 -

2011 (Doc. 15). Thus, the record shows that Plaintiff received a copy of the motion but

failed to file a response.

Since the filing of Defendants’ motion, however, Plaintiff filed a Joint Discovery Plan

and, on January 4, 2011, submitted a Notice of Service of Plaintiff’s Request for Production

of Documents (Docs. 17, 31). These filings demonstrate Plaintiff’s intent to litigate this

action. Under these circumstances, the Court hesitates in granting the dispositive motion

base on the failure to oppose it.

Plaintiff will be ordered to (1) explain why an opposition brief was not filed and

(2) show cause why Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should not be treated as

unopposed. Plaintiff must respond to this Order to Show Cause within 10 days.

IT IS ORDERED that within 10 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must

explain why an opposition brief was not filed and show cause why Defendants’ motion

should not be treated as unopposed.

DATED this 7th day of February, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00268-RCB Document 33 Filed 02/08/12 Page 3 of 3