Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01925/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01925-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL C. HAMILTON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J.A. YATES, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-1925-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(ECF No. 50)

FOURTEEN DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Paul C. Hamilton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, initially filed this action in the Fresno County Superior Court on July 14, 2008. 

(ECF No. 1.) After it became apparent that Plaintiff was proceeding on civil rights claims

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the action was removed to this Court. (ECF Nos. 

1, 11, 15.) This matter proceeds against Defendants Mattingly, Trimble, Spearman and 

Yates on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. (ECF Nos. 23, 

24.)

On October 3, 2013, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order, setting 

an August 14, 2014 deadline for filing dispositive motions. (ECF No. 44.) Defendants 

sought and were granted an extension of time to September 22, 2014. (ECF Nos. 48, 

Case 1:10-cv-01925-LJO-MJS Document 53 Filed 09/17/14 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

49.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s August 12, 2014 motion for judgment on the 

pleadings. (ECF No. 50.) Defendants opposed the motion (ECF No. 51) and Plaintiff 

filed a reply (ECF No. 52). Although Plaintiff requested a hearing on his motion, the

matter is deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Judgment on the Pleadings

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is a means to challenge the sufficiency of 

the opposing party’s pleading and provides a vehicle for summary adjudication on the 

merits after the pleadings are closed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c); Alexander v. City of 

Chicago, 994 F.2d 333, 336 (7th Cir. 1993). The pleadings are closed when all required 

pleadings have been served and filed. Norcal Gold, Inc. v. Laubly, 543 F. Supp. 2d 

1132, 1135 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

The court applies the same standard as on 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 

Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011).

A plaintiff may bring the motion if the answer fails to controvert material facts 

alleged in the complaint. “A plaintiff is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings when 

the answer raises issues of fact that, if proved, would defeat recovery. Similarly, if the 

defendant raises an affirmative defense in his answer it will usually bar judgment on the 

pleadings.” General Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Seventh-Day 

Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1989).

If matters outside the pleadings are presented the motion for judgment on the 

pleadings is converted to a Rule 56 summary judgment motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d); 

Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir.

1989).

B. Summary Judgment

Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary 

Case 1:10-cv-01925-LJO-MJS Document 53 Filed 09/17/14 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

judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact 

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Wash. 

Mut. Inc. v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to judgment because the deadline for filing 

dispositive motions has passed and no such motion was filed by Defendants. (ECF No. 

50 at 4-5.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants therefore have failed to defend this action. 

Although Plaintiff’s motion is styled as a motion for judgment on the pleadings, he also 

appears to seek summary judgment on the same ground. Defendants argue that 

Plaintiff has not asserted a sufficient basis for judgment on the pleadings since

Defendants’ answer controverted the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 51.) 

Plaintiff has not established that Defendants’ answer fails to controvert facts 

alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff argues only that the denials in Defendants’ answer are 

simple, vague, conclusory, and “just enough to deny their wrongs.” (ECF No. 52.) 

However, at the pleading stage, Defendants need only raise questions of material fact 

or present affirmative defenses; they are not yet required to prove their case. General 

Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 887 F.2d at 230. Plaintiff is not entitled to 

judgment on the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).

Plaintiff also relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b) to support his 

argument that Defendants have failed to defend this action. That rule provides: “Unless 

a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a 

motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of discovery.”

(Emphasis added.) However, Rule 56(b) is inapplicable here, where the Court set 

August 14, 2014 as the deadline for filing dispositive motions in the discovery and 

scheduling order, and then extended that deadline to September 22, 2014. Plaintiff’s 

motion for judgment was filed in advance of both of these deadlines. 

Even if the deadline for filing dispositive motions had passed, Plaintiff would not 

be entitled to judgment. Nothing in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requires a party 

Case 1:10-cv-01925-LJO-MJS Document 53 Filed 09/17/14 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

to file a motion for summary judgment to preserve its ability to proceed with its case or 

defense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (providing that a party “may” move for summary 

judgment). Indeed, summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no disputed issue 

of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Where

disputed issues of material fact exist, summary judgment is not available. If no summary 

judgment motion is filed, or a summary judgment motion is denied, the case will 

proceed to trial. The lack of a summary judgment motion on Defendants’ part does not 

entitle Plaintiff to judgment.

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s 

motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 50) be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States 

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and 

Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a 

copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served 

and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. 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, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01925-LJO-MJS Document 53 Filed 09/17/14 Page 4 of 4