1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEX ISOM, Case No.: 23-cv-103-DMS-MMP
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Defendant United States’ Motion for Summary 19 Judgment. (Defendant’s Motion (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 24). Plaintiff Alex Isom has 20 not filed a response in opposition. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS 21 Defendant’s Motion. 22 I. 23 BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff sues Defendant for injuries resulting from an altercation with Customs and 25 Border Protection (“CBP”) at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. (Plaintiff’s First Amended 26 Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 7). Plaintiff alleges that on August 17, 2021, while 27 delivering frozen meat near the U.S.-Mexico border, a CBP Officer asked to search his 28 truck. (Id. at 3). During the search, Plaintiff alleges that several Officers “assaulted and 1 tackled Plaintiff to the ground,” “force[d] him to put his hands behind his back,” “threw 2 Plaintiff against a concrete wall”, and “shackled his ankles to a bench” for three hours. (Id. 3 at 4). He was then allegedly released from custody without explanation. (Id.). Pursuant 4 to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), Plaintiff asserts five causes of action against 5 Defendant: (1) false imprisonment; (2) assault; (3) battery; (4) negligence; and (5) 6 intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at 5–8). 7 On October 6, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff’s Counsel with electronic discovery 8 requests. (Def.’s Mot 3). Then, on October 18, 2023, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a motion to 9 withdraw because of a conflict of interest. (ECF No. 19). The Court granted the motion. 10 (ECF No. 21). Following this change of course, Defendant sent the previously served 11 requests to Plaintiff. (Def.’s Mot. 3, Exhibit 3). On December 22, 2023, Defendant served 12 Plaintiff with Requests for Admission. (Id.). Neither Defendant nor the Court has heard 13 from Plaintiff since he became pro se. (Id.). 14 II. 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, 17 and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The 18 moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating that summary judgment is proper. 19 Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). The moving party must identify 20 the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, or other evidence that it “believes demonstrates the 21 absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 22 (1986). “A material issue of fact is one that affects the outcome of the litigation and 23 requires a trial to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth.” S.E.C. v. Seaboard 24 Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1306 (9th Cir. 1982). 25 The burden then shifts to the opposing party to show that summary judgment is not 26 appropriate. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. The opposing party’s evidence is to be believed, 27 and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 28 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). However, to avoid summary judgment, the opposing party 1 cannot rest solely on conclusory allegations. Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th 2 Cir. 1986). Instead, it must designate specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for 3 trial. Id.; see also Butler v. San Diego District Attorney’s Office, 370 F.3d 956, 958 (9th 4 Cir. 2004) (stating if defendant produces enough evidence to require plaintiff to go beyond 5 pleadings, plaintiff must counter by producing evidence of his own). 6 “Summary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural 7 shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed 8 to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” Celotex, 477 9 U.S. at 327. “Rule 56 must be construed with due regard . . . for the rights of persons 10 opposing . . . claims and defenses to demonstrate in the manner provided by the Rule, prior 11 to trial, that the claims and defenses have no factual basis.” Id. 12 III. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to its Requests for Admission 15 deems all such matters admitted such that there is no genuine dispute of material fact. 16 (Def.’s Mot. 2). The Court agrees. 17 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36, “[a] matter is admitted unless, 18 within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the 19 requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the 20 party or its attorney.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). “Rule 36(a) is self-executing and the failure 21 to timely respond to requests for admissions results in automatic admission of the matters 22 requested.” Petros v. Duncan, 2020 WL 6786196, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2020). If no 23 other genuine disputes of material fact exist in the case, summary judgment is appropriate. 24 O’Campo v. Hardisty, 262 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 1958) (affirming summary judgment 25 because “the unanswered request for admissions resulted in Appellant’s admitting that at 26 all times the Appellees were acting solely under color of their offices and by the authority 27 of the Internal Revenue Laws”); Ocasio v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 10 F.App’x 471, 28 472 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Because Ocasio failed to respond to defendant’s requests for 1 admissions, the district court properly deemed the matters admitted pursuant to Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 36(a) and, in the absence of any disputed issues of material fact, properly granted 3 summary judgment.”); GTE Directories Corp. v. McCartney, 11 F.App’x 735, 737 (9th 4 Cir. 2001) (“It is clear that a district court may grant summary judgment based on deemed 5 admissions.”); Wohl v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 225 F.App’x 676, 677 (9th Cir. 2007). The 6 fact that a plaintiff is pro se does not change the analysis. See id.; Ocasio, 10 F.App’x at 7 472. 8 Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s Requests for Admission. (Def.’s Mot. 5). 9 Served on December 22, 2023, Plaintiff’s 30-day window to respond has far expired. (Id. 10 at Exhibit 3). Thus, Plaintiff has admitted the following: 11 • “Admit YOU were not ‘tackled’ or ‘pushed to the ground’ by CBP Officers, as YOU 12 alleged in YOUR FAC.” 13 • “Admit YOU were not ‘severely beat[en]’ by CBP Officers while YOU lay on the 14 ground, as YOU alleged in YOUR FAC.” 15 • “Admit YOU were not thrown ‘against a concrete wall’ by CBP Officers, as YOU 16 alleged in YOUR FAC.” 17 • “Admit CBP Officers acted reasonably in responding to your non-compliant conduct 18 on August 17, 2021, at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in San Diego, California.” 19 (Id.). Considering these admissions, Plaintiff’s remaining allegations are that he was 20 handcuffed and detained for three hours. (FAC 4). Without more, these allegations cannot 21 sustain his claims under California law, applicable here because the relevant conduct 22 occurred at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in San Diego, CA. (Id. at 3); 28 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEX ISOM, Case No.: 23-cv-103-DMS-MMP
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Defendant United States’ Motion for Summary 19 Judgment. (Defendant’s Motion (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 24). Plaintiff Alex Isom has 20 not filed a response in opposition. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS 21 Defendant’s Motion. 22 I. 23 BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff sues Defendant for injuries resulting from an altercation with Customs and 25 Border Protection (“CBP”) at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. (Plaintiff’s First Amended 26 Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 7). Plaintiff alleges that on August 17, 2021, while 27 delivering frozen meat near the U.S.-Mexico border, a CBP Officer asked to search his 28 truck. (Id. at 3). During the search, Plaintiff alleges that several Officers “assaulted and 1 tackled Plaintiff to the ground,” “force[d] him to put his hands behind his back,” “threw 2 Plaintiff against a concrete wall”, and “shackled his ankles to a bench” for three hours. (Id. 3 at 4). He was then allegedly released from custody without explanation. (Id.). Pursuant 4 to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), Plaintiff asserts five causes of action against 5 Defendant: (1) false imprisonment; (2) assault; (3) battery; (4) negligence; and (5) 6 intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at 5–8). 7 On October 6, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff’s Counsel with electronic discovery 8 requests. (Def.’s Mot 3). Then, on October 18, 2023, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a motion to 9 withdraw because of a conflict of interest. (ECF No. 19). The Court granted the motion. 10 (ECF No. 21). Following this change of course, Defendant sent the previously served 11 requests to Plaintiff. (Def.’s Mot. 3, Exhibit 3). On December 22, 2023, Defendant served 12 Plaintiff with Requests for Admission. (Id.). Neither Defendant nor the Court has heard 13 from Plaintiff since he became pro se. (Id.). 14 II. 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, 17 and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The 18 moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating that summary judgment is proper. 19 Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). The moving party must identify 20 the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, or other evidence that it “believes demonstrates the 21 absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 22 (1986). “A material issue of fact is one that affects the outcome of the litigation and 23 requires a trial to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth.” S.E.C. v. Seaboard 24 Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1306 (9th Cir. 1982). 25 The burden then shifts to the opposing party to show that summary judgment is not 26 appropriate. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. The opposing party’s evidence is to be believed, 27 and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 28 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). However, to avoid summary judgment, the opposing party 1 cannot rest solely on conclusory allegations. Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th 2 Cir. 1986). Instead, it must designate specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for 3 trial. Id.; see also Butler v. San Diego District Attorney’s Office, 370 F.3d 956, 958 (9th 4 Cir. 2004) (stating if defendant produces enough evidence to require plaintiff to go beyond 5 pleadings, plaintiff must counter by producing evidence of his own). 6 “Summary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural 7 shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed 8 to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” Celotex, 477 9 U.S. at 327. “Rule 56 must be construed with due regard . . . for the rights of persons 10 opposing . . . claims and defenses to demonstrate in the manner provided by the Rule, prior 11 to trial, that the claims and defenses have no factual basis.” Id. 12 III. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to its Requests for Admission 15 deems all such matters admitted such that there is no genuine dispute of material fact. 16 (Def.’s Mot. 2). The Court agrees. 17 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36, “[a] matter is admitted unless, 18 within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the 19 requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the 20 party or its attorney.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). “Rule 36(a) is self-executing and the failure 21 to timely respond to requests for admissions results in automatic admission of the matters 22 requested.” Petros v. Duncan, 2020 WL 6786196, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2020). If no 23 other genuine disputes of material fact exist in the case, summary judgment is appropriate. 24 O’Campo v. Hardisty, 262 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 1958) (affirming summary judgment 25 because “the unanswered request for admissions resulted in Appellant’s admitting that at 26 all times the Appellees were acting solely under color of their offices and by the authority 27 of the Internal Revenue Laws”); Ocasio v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 10 F.App’x 471, 28 472 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Because Ocasio failed to respond to defendant’s requests for 1 admissions, the district court properly deemed the matters admitted pursuant to Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 36(a) and, in the absence of any disputed issues of material fact, properly granted 3 summary judgment.”); GTE Directories Corp. v. McCartney, 11 F.App’x 735, 737 (9th 4 Cir. 2001) (“It is clear that a district court may grant summary judgment based on deemed 5 admissions.”); Wohl v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 225 F.App’x 676, 677 (9th Cir. 2007). The 6 fact that a plaintiff is pro se does not change the analysis. See id.; Ocasio, 10 F.App’x at 7 472. 8 Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s Requests for Admission. (Def.’s Mot. 5). 9 Served on December 22, 2023, Plaintiff’s 30-day window to respond has far expired. (Id. 10 at Exhibit 3). Thus, Plaintiff has admitted the following: 11 • “Admit YOU were not ‘tackled’ or ‘pushed to the ground’ by CBP Officers, as YOU 12 alleged in YOUR FAC.” 13 • “Admit YOU were not ‘severely beat[en]’ by CBP Officers while YOU lay on the 14 ground, as YOU alleged in YOUR FAC.” 15 • “Admit YOU were not thrown ‘against a concrete wall’ by CBP Officers, as YOU 16 alleged in YOUR FAC.” 17 • “Admit CBP Officers acted reasonably in responding to your non-compliant conduct 18 on August 17, 2021, at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in San Diego, California.” 19 (Id.). Considering these admissions, Plaintiff’s remaining allegations are that he was 20 handcuffed and detained for three hours. (FAC 4). Without more, these allegations cannot 21 sustain his claims under California law, applicable here because the relevant conduct 22 occurred at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in San Diego, CA. (Id. at 3); 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b); 23 Trenouth v. United States, 764 F.2d 1305, 1307 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The FTCA provides that 24 the law of the state where the alleged tort occurs is to be applied to determine whether the 25 defendant committed a tort.”). 26 Admitting that CBP officers acted reasonably forecloses Plaintiff’s negligence 27 claim. Vasilenko v. Grace Fam. Church, 404 P.3d 1196, 1198 (2017) (stating that elements 28 of negligence under California law include duty of reasonable care and breach of that duty). 1 || This admission also forecloses his assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional 2 || distress, and false imprisonment claims. When these claims “concern the conduct of peace 3 || officers acting in their official capacities”, the plaintiff must show that the “officers used 4 unreasonable force”. Avina v. United States, 681 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (applying 5 || standard to assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against 6 || United States); Lovelady v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 2024 WL 2788436, at 7 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2024) (applying standard to false imprisonment claim against United 8 ||States); (FAC 5-8) (stating that Officers acted “within their official capacity” for each 9 |/claim). While Plaintiff's admissions about the Officers’ physical conduct (or lack thereof) 10 || weakened his claims, admitting reasonableness eliminated any material dispute between 11 |/the parties. The reasonableness of the CBP Officers’ conduct entitles Defendant to 12 judgment as a matter of law on all counts. 13 As a final note, Plaintiff has not acted in this case since October 2023. He has neither 14 ||}communicated with the Court nor Defendant, which includes his lack of response in 15 opposition to the present Motion. (Def.’s Mot. 3, Exhibit 3). It appears to the Court that 16 ||he no longer wishes to pursue his case. Accordingly, his claims are DISMISSED. 17 IV. 18 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 19 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary 20 || Judgment. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: October 1, 2024 2» vrs. yn. 23 —__T7+S_,WWT—— Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 24 United States District Court 25 26 27 28