Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES LOWELL KENTZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

EARLENE SMITH,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-06066-OWW-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE STRICKEN

FROM THE RECORD

(Doc. 71)

Plaintiff Charles Lowell Kentz (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. This action is

proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint against defendant Earlene Smith (“defendant”)

for discriminating against plaintiff on the basis of his sexual orientation, in violation of the Equal

Protection Clause. On August 3, 2006, the undersigned issued an order requiring defendant to show

cause within twenty days why her motion for summary judgment should not be stricken from the

record. Defendant was warned that if she either failed to respond or was unable to show cause in

her response, the undersigned would recommend that her motion forsummary judgment be stricken

from the record. Defendant filed a response to the order on August 23, 2006.

The Court’s order to show cause stated in relevant part:

On July 31, 2006, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. 

The Court has reviewed defendant’s motion and finds it necessary to require

defendant to respond in writing to address the bases for her motion and the Court’s

///

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 88 Filed 08/24/06 Page 1 of 4
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

concerns. Unless instructed to do so by the Court, plaintiff shall not file a response

to the motion.

This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s claim that defendant violated his rights under

the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against him. The Court has issued

orders specifically identifying the basis of this action, see e.g. Court Doc. 19, and the

second amended complaint pleads no other constitutional claim. Despite this,

defendant’s motion is almost entirely devoid of any mention of plaintiff’s equal

protection claim. Instead, defendant argues that plaintiff does not have a protected

liberty interest in his prison job and that plaintiff’s allegations do not support a claim

of deliberate indifference. (Motion, 7:1-8:3 & 9:21-10:20.) The Court is confounded

by defendant’s decision to argue that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

on Fifth Amendment due process and Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement

claims, which are not at issue in this action, while failing to include any section

setting forth law or specific argument on equal protection, which is at issue in this

action. (Motion, 5:14-10:20.) 

Further, defendant cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a screening statue applicable to cases

such as this, and asserts that the Court has discretion to dismiss this action as

frivolous. (Motion, 8:18-9:19.) The Court is not usually inclined to view such an

argument with favor, as the Court screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint

pursuant to the screening statute and made a specific finding that plaintiff’s

allegations stated a claim. The argument becomes even less favorable given that

defendant fails to touch upon this finding and attempt to persuade the Court why its

earlier finding was in error, and defendant fails to set forth any argument that

plaintiff’s claim in this action is frivolous. The entire subsection consists solely of

a citation to and discussion of a Fourth Circuit case affirming a district court’s

dismissal of an action as frivolous. Defendant makes no attempt to apply the law

cited to the facts of this case. 

Finally, although defendant is purportedly moving for summary judgment, the

arguments set forth in the motion are more suited to an attack on the pleadings

brought via motion to dismiss rather than an entitlement to judgment as a matter of

law based on the evidence submitted by defendant. Defendant does include a

Statement of Undisputed Facts, in compliance with Local Rule 56-260(a), but she

fails to argue the facts in her motion or even cite to them in her Memorandum of

Law. The Court cannot and will not comb through defendant’s Statement of

Undisputed Facts and make her arguments for her. The Court also notes that in the

introduction to the motion, defendant cites to Exhibit B and in the Statement of

Undisputed Facts, defendant cites to Exhibits A, B, and C. These exhibits are also

referenced by defendant in her declaration. However, the only evidence before the

Court is defendant’s declaration. Exhibits A, B, and C were not submitted with the

motion.

That the motion submitted by defendant is not what the Court expects to see from

practioners in federal court is an understatement. Given that the motion purports to

be one for summary judgment and that this case is proceeding solely on an equal

protection claim, the motion is so off point and lacking that the Court views it to be

frivolous. Defendant shall be given the opportunity to show cause why the motion

should not be stricken from the record. If defendant declines to show cause in

response to this order or is unable to show cause, the undersigned will recommend

to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger that the motion be stricken. In the event that the

motion is stricken, defendant will be given one final opportunity to file a dispositive

motion, but is placed on notice that if a subsequent motion is filed and found to be

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 88 Filed 08/24/06 Page 2 of 4
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

as deficient as the present motion, defendant will not benefit from the leniency being

demonstrated in this instance.

(Doc. 73, 1:22-3:26.) 

The Court has reviewed defendant’s response to the order to show cause and finds that it is

almost entirely non-responsive to the substance of the order. The focus of defendant’s response is

legal argument and a discussion of the facts, both related to the merits of plaintiff’s equal protection

claim. With the exception of the missing exhibits issue, discussed in the following paragraph,

defendant’s only acknowledgment of the deficiencies raised by the Court is one sentence in counsel’s

declaration in which he states, “Despite the apparent shortcomings in the content and form of

defendant’s Motion, as identified by the Court in the Order to Show Cause, I respectfully submit that

all the necessary facts and law are now before the Court in order to rule and grant summary judgment

in favor of defendant, Earlene Smith.” (Doc. 84, Kellar Dec., ¶4.) The Court’s order was not an

invitation to supplement the motion for summary judgment by setting forth legal arguments as to the

merits of plaintiff’s equal protection claim or to summarize the facts defendant believes entitle her

to an order granting her motion for summary judgment. Both should have been done in the motion

for summary judgment.

Defendant’s response does address the failure to submit Exhibits A, B, and C with her

motion. Counsel’s law office was having trouble with its scanner and counsel’s secretary received

permission from a member of the Clerk’s Office to send the exhibits by mail. (Id., Kellar Dec., ¶5.)

Accordingly, that issue has been addressed to the Court’s satisfaction. However, counsel is

cautioned that in the future, the Court, not just the Clerk’s Office, needs to be notified if exhibits are

being submitted separately at a later date , preferably via an electronically filed notice but at the very

least by a telephone call to the assigned judge’s courtroom deputy or chamber’s staff.

As set forth herein, the Court finds that defendant has not shown good cause why her

motion for summary judgment should not be stricken from the record and HEREBY

RECOMMENDS that the motion be STRICKEN. The Court FURTHER RECOMMENDS that

defendant be granted a thirty-day extension of time to file a dispositive motion, to commence upon

the issuance Judge Wanger’s order addressing this Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 88 Filed 08/24/06 Page 3 of 4
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

This Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 88 Filed 08/24/06 Page 4 of 4