Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00950/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00950-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The Board of Prison Terms was abolished effective July 1, 2005,

and replaced with the Board of Parole Hearings. Cal. Penal Code

§ 5075(a).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN LIEBB,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. DALY, 

Board of Parole Hearings

Commissioner,

Defendant.

__________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-950 CW (PR)

RELATED CASE: No. C 04-4213 CW (PR)

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND

REQUEST TO STAY PROCEEDINGS;

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; (3) REFERRING CASE

TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY

PURPOSES; AND (4) DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket nos. 17, 19, 21, 22)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State

Prison (SQSP). In 2004 he filed two actions, one a civil rights

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Liebb v. Daly, Case

No. C 04-950 CW (PR), and the other a petition for a writ of habeas

brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Liebb v. Brown, Case No. C

04-4213 CW (PR). Both actions challenged the constitutional

validity of Liebb's July 17, 2003, parole suitability hearing

before the California Board of Parole Hearings (Board),1

 and the

procedures the Board relies upon to grant or deny parole to

prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for murder. 

In an Order dated November 10, 2004, the Court conducted a

preliminary review of both actions. With respect to the § 1983

action, the Court determined that the claims in the complaint must

be raised in a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus and

Case 4:04-cv-00950-CW Document 23 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

dismissed the civil rights action without prejudice. In the habeas

action, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause. An answer and a

traverse were filed by the parties. In an Order dated August 24,

2005, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to conduct limited

discovery in his habeas action. The habeas action was later

referred for discovery purposes to Magistrate Judge James Larson,

who has since granted some of Plaintiff's discovery requests.

Meanwhile, on June 1, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion in the

closed § 1983 action seeking leave to file an amended complaint in

light of the Supreme Court's March 7, 2005 opinion in Wilkinson v.

Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 83-84 (2005), which held that prisoners could

challenge the constitutionality of state parole procedures in a

§ 1983 action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and were

not required to seek relief exclusively under federal habeas

statutes. Plaintiff filed a proposed amended complaint alleging

that the Board's hearing procedures and decision-making processes

to deny parole to convicted murderers did not comply with the

constitutional mandates of due process. 

In an Order dated February 16, 2006, the Court found that

Wilkinson clarified that claims such as those Plaintiff raised can

be brought in a § 1983 action. The Court granted Plaintiff's

motion for leave to file an amended complaint in Case No. C 04-950

CW and directed the Clerk of the Court to reopen this action.

On March 1, 2006, Plaintiff filed a request for appointment of

counsel, and on June 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel

discovery. In an Order dated March 12, 2007, the Court denied both

motions. (Mar. 12, 2007 Order at 2-3.) The Court denied

Plaintiff's motion to compel as premature for failing to comply

Case 4:04-cv-00950-CW Document 23 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Defendant also argues that this action should be dismissed for

failure to state a claim because Plaintiff has no standing to request

relief on behalf of other inmates. (Mot. for Judgment on Pleadings

at 5-6.) The Court finds no merit to Defendant's argument because

Plaintiff does not purport to sue on behalf of any other inmates.

3

with the meet and confer requirement of N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37-1

and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B). (Id. at 3.) 

Before the Court is Defendant's motion for judgment on the

pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) on grounds that there

is no issue of material fact and that Defendant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.2 (Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings

at 1.) Alternatively, Defendant requests that the Court stay these

proceedings pending the resolution of Plaintiff's related habeas

action. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has filed an opposition to

Defendant's motion and has renewed his request for appointment of

counsel. He has also filed a motion for reconsideration of the

Court's denial of his motion to compel.

Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the

Court DENIES Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and

request to stay proceedings. Defendant may file a motion for

summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, if

appropriate. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for

reconsideration, REFERS the case to a magistrate judge for

discovery purposes, and DENIES Plaintiff's renewed motion for

appointment of counsel.

DISCUSSION

I. Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 

It is well-settled that the standard applied to Rule 12(c)

motions is the same as that applied to Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Hal

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

Case 4:04-cv-00950-CW Document 23 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Cir. 1990). That is, judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only

when the moving party clearly establishes eligibility for judgment

as a matter of law and that there is no material issue of fact on

the face of the pleadings. Id. As with Rule 12(b)(6) motions,

judgment on the pleadings is improper if a court must go beyond the

pleadings to resolve an issue. Id. Such a proceeding must be

brought in the form of a motion for summary judgment. Id.

Judgment on the pleadings is inappropriate in this action. 

Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's amended complaint "criticizes

the Board's hearing procedures and decision-making processes for

inmates in conclusory terms" is unavailing. It is clear in his

amended complaint that Plaintiff is seeking relief for the

"violation of his due process rights at his July 17, 2003 parole

suitability hearing" at which Defendant presided. (Am. Compl. at

1.) The Court cannot decide this case on the pleadings because it

must consider matters outside the pleadings, such as how long

Plaintiff had been incarcerated prior to his parole hearing and the

factors the Board considered before finding Plaintiff unsuitable

for parole, including whether Plaintiff's commitment offense

weighed heavily in the Board's determination.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for judgment

on the pleadings. Defendant's request to stay proceedings is also

DENIED. Defendant may file a motion for summary judgment. The

parties shall abide by the briefing schedule outlined below.

II. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff has shown that he

has satisfied the "meet and confer" requirements of N.D. Cal. Local

Rule 37-1 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B). (Mot. for Recons.

Case 4:04-cv-00950-CW Document 23 Filed 03/31/08 Page 4 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Attach. 1-7.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for

reconsideration. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 72-1, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel

(docket no. 15) and all further discovery motions filed in the

above-captioned case are referred to a Magistrate Judge Larson, who

handled the discovery matters in Plaintiff's habeas action.

III. Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel

On March 1, 2006, Plaintiff claimed that he was unable to

litigate the present action on his own behalf because he did not

have the ability effectively to manage and prosecute the discovery

requests he sought. The Court denied Plaintiff's first request for

appointment of counsel as premature because it was too early to

assess the existence of exceptional circumstances which would

warrant appointing counsel. (Mar. 12, 2007 Order at 2.) In doing

so, the Court noted Plaintiff's ability adequately to articulate

his claims in light of the complexity of the issues. See Agyeman

v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 

However, the Court did not preclude Plaintiff from filing a renewed

motion for appointment of counsel at a later date. (March 12, 2007

Order at 3.)

In his opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings,

Plaintiff renews his motion for appointment of counsel. (Opp'n at

6.) He argues that his "efforts to obtain needed discovery from

the Defendant have been met with indifference and lack of

cooperation." (Id.) Nevertheless, in light of the Court's order

referring this case to Magistrate Judge Larson for discovery

purposes, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's renewed motion for

appointment of counsel. However, Plaintiff may renew his

Case 4:04-cv-00950-CW Document 23 Filed 03/31/08 Page 5 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

appointment of counsel motion after Defendant has filed a summary

judgment motion. If the Court finds that appointment of counsel is

warranted, it will seek volunteer counsel to represent Plaintiff. 

CONCLUSION

1. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and

request to stay proceedings (docket no. 19) is DENIED. 

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the

Court orders as follows:

a. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this

Order, Defendant shall file a motion for summary

judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion

shall be supported by adequate factual documentation

and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits

all records and incident reports stemming from the

events at issue. If Defendant is of the opinion

that this case cannot be resolved by summary

judgment, Defendant shall so inform the Court prior

to the date the summary judgment motion is due. All

papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served

on Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's dispositive

motion shall be filed with the Court and served on

Defendant no later than thirty (30) days from the

date Defendant's motion is filed. The Ninth Circuit

has held that the following notice should be given

to pro se plaintiffs facing a summary judgment

motion:

Case 4:04-cv-00950-CW Document 23 Filed 03/31/08 Page 6 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

 The defendants have made a motion for

summary judgment by which they seek to

have your case dismissed. A motion for

summary judgment under Rule 56 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if

granted, end your case. 

 Rule 56 tells you what you must do in

order to oppose a motion for summary

judgment. Generally, summary judgment

must be granted when there is no genuine

issue of material fact -- that is, if

there is no real dispute about any fact

that would affect the result of your case,

the party who asked for summary judgment

is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law, which will end your case. When a

party you are suing makes a motion for

summary judgment that is properly

supported by declarations (or other sworn

testimony), you cannot simply rely on what

your complaint says. Instead, you must

set out specific facts in declarations,

depositions, answers to interrogatories,

or authenticated documents, as provided in

Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts

shown in the defendant's declarations and

documents and show that there is a genuine

issue of material fact for trial. If you

do not submit your own evidence in

opposition, summary judgment, if

appropriate, may be entered against you. 

If summary judgment is granted [in favor

of the defendants], your case will be

dismissed and there will be no trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir.

1998) (en banc).

Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party opposing summary

judgment must come forward with evidence showing

triable issues of material fact on every essential

element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that

because he bears the burden of proving his

allegations in this case, he must be prepared to

Case 4:04-cv-00950-CW Document 23 Filed 03/31/08 Page 7 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

8

produce evidence in support of those allegations

when he files his opposition to Defendant's

dispositive motion. Such evidence may include sworn

declarations from himself and other witnesses, and

copies of documents authenticated by sworn

declaration. Plaintiff will not be able to avoid

summary judgment simply by repeating the allegations

of his complaint.

c. If Defendant wishes to file a reply brief, Defendant

shall do so no later than thirty (30) days after the

date Plaintiff's opposition is filed. 

d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date

the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on

the motion unless the Court so orders at a later

date.

e. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must

be served on Defendant's counsel.

f. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this

case. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any

change of address and must comply with the Court's

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may

result in the dismissal of this action for failure

to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b).

g. Extensions of time are not favored. A party making

a motion for an extension of time is not relieved

from his or her duty to comply with the deadlines

set by the Court merely by having made a motion for

Case 4:04-cv-00950-CW Document 23 Filed 03/31/08 Page 8 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.04\Liebb0950.JudPleadings&Recon.frm 9

an extension of time. The party making the motion

must still meet the deadlines set by the Court until

an order addressing the motion for an extension of

time is issued. Any motion for an extension of time

must be filed no later than ten (10) days prior to

the deadline sought to be extended.

3. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (docket no. 17) is

GRANTED. The Court REFERS Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (docket no.

15) and all further discovery motions filed in the above-captioned

case to Magistrate Judge Larson for discovery purposes pursuant to

Local Rule 72-1.

4. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's renewed motion for

appointment of counsel (docket no. 21).

5. Plaintiff's requests that the Court take judicial notice

of the findings by the Santa Clara County Superior Court in In re

Viet Mike Ngo On Habeas Corpus (Case No. 127611), In re Donnell E.

Jameison On Habeas Corpus (Case No. 71194), and In re Arthur

Criscione On Habeas Corpus (Case No. 71614), and by the California

Court of Appeal in In re Sandra David Lawrence On Habeas Corpus

(Case No. B190874) (docket nos. 21, 22) are GRANTED. 

6. This Order terminates Docket nos. 17, 19, 21 and 22.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/31/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00950-CW Document 23 Filed 03/31/08 Page 9 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.04\Liebb0950.JudPleadings&Recon.frm 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIEBB,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BROWN et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV04-04213 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on March 31, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Denise Alayne Yates

Office of the Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Stephen Liebb C-60825

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

Dated: March 31, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:04-cv-00950-CW Document 23 Filed 03/31/08 Page 10 of 10