UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JEFFREY SCOTT KLINEFELTER, Case No. 2:20-cv-01429-JAM-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER BE v. GRANTED GURMEET KAUR, ECF No. 35 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED
ECF No. 31
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS Plaintiff is a state prisoner who alleges that defendant Kaur violated his First Amendment right to access the courts when she refused to make copies for him and denied him envelopes. ECF No. 12 at 3. He has filed a motion for summary judgment that should be denied.
Additionally, defendant has filed a motion to amend her answer, which I will grant. Defendant’s Motion to Amend Answer Defendant has asked to amend her answer to include various affirmative defenses that were mistakenly omitted in the original. ECF No. 35 at 1. More than twenty-one days have passed since the filing of the original answer, and defendant can only amend with either plaintiff’s consent or leave of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, but he has not given his consent, either. Thus, defendant can only amend by my leave, which I should give freely “when justice so requires.” Id. I will grant defendant’s motion. Motions to amend should be denied only where the amendment would “cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). There is no evidence of those factors here. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment I. Legal Standards Summary judgment is appropriate where 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); Washington Mutual Inc. v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). An issue of fact is genuine only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to find for the non-moving party, while a fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1422, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987). Rule 56 allows a court to grant summary adjudication, also known as partial summary judgment, when there is no genuine issue of material fact as to a claim or portion of that claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Lies v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 765, 769 n.3 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Rule 56 authorizes a summary adjudication that will often fall short of a final determination, even of a single claim . . . .”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The standards that apply on a motion for summary judgment and a motion for summary adjudication are the same. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (a), (c); Mora v. Chem-Tronics, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1192, 1200 (S.D. Cal. 1998). Each party’s position must be supported by (1) citing to particular portions of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010). “The moving party initially bears the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). To meet its burden, “the moving party must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). If the moving party meets this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party “to designate specific facts demonstrating the existence of genuine issues for trial.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323). The non-moving party must “show more than the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” Id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). However, the non-moving party is not required to establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor; it is sufficient that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Electrical Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Assoc., 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). The court must apply standards consistent with Rule 56 to determine whether the moving party has demonstrated there to be no genuine issue of material fact and that judgment is appropriate as a matter of law. See Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). “[A] court ruling on a motion for summary judgment may not engage in credibility determinations or the weighing of evidence.” Manley v. Rowley, 847 F.3d 705, 711 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). The evidence must be viewed “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party” and “all justifiable inferences” must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 772 (9th Cir. 2002); accord Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000). II. Analysis Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied, because whether defendant violated plaintiff’s First Amendment rights is disputed. ECF No. 25 at 3. And plaintiff’s five- page motion for summary judgment does not contain either evidence or argum
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JEFFREY SCOTT KLINEFELTER, Case No. 2:20-cv-01429-JAM-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER BE v. GRANTED GURMEET KAUR, ECF No. 35 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED
ECF No. 31
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS Plaintiff is a state prisoner who alleges that defendant Kaur violated his First Amendment right to access the courts when she refused to make copies for him and denied him envelopes. ECF No. 12 at 3. He has filed a motion for summary judgment that should be denied.
Additionally, defendant has filed a motion to amend her answer, which I will grant. Defendant’s Motion to Amend Answer Defendant has asked to amend her answer to include various affirmative defenses that were mistakenly omitted in the original. ECF No. 35 at 1. More than twenty-one days have passed since the filing of the original answer, and defendant can only amend with either plaintiff’s consent or leave of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, but he has not given his consent, either. Thus, defendant can only amend by my leave, which I should give freely “when justice so requires.” Id. I will grant defendant’s motion. Motions to amend should be denied only where the amendment would “cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). There is no evidence of those factors here. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment I. Legal Standards Summary judgment is appropriate where 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); Washington Mutual Inc. v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). An issue of fact is genuine only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to find for the non-moving party, while a fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1422, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987). Rule 56 allows a court to grant summary adjudication, also known as partial summary judgment, when there is no genuine issue of material fact as to a claim or portion of that claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Lies v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 765, 769 n.3 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Rule 56 authorizes a summary adjudication that will often fall short of a final determination, even of a single claim . . . .”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The standards that apply on a motion for summary judgment and a motion for summary adjudication are the same. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (a), (c); Mora v. Chem-Tronics, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1192, 1200 (S.D. Cal. 1998). Each party’s position must be supported by (1) citing to particular portions of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010). “The moving party initially bears the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). To meet its burden, “the moving party must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). If the moving party meets this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party “to designate specific facts demonstrating the existence of genuine issues for trial.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323). The non-moving party must “show more than the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” Id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). However, the non-moving party is not required to establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor; it is sufficient that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Electrical Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Assoc., 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). The court must apply standards consistent with Rule 56 to determine whether the moving party has demonstrated there to be no genuine issue of material fact and that judgment is appropriate as a matter of law. See Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). “[A] court ruling on a motion for summary judgment may not engage in credibility determinations or the weighing of evidence.” Manley v. Rowley, 847 F.3d 705, 711 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). The evidence must be viewed “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party” and “all justifiable inferences” must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 772 (9th Cir. 2002); accord Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000). II. Analysis Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied, because whether defendant violated plaintiff’s First Amendment rights is disputed. ECF No. 25 at 3. And plaintiff’s five- page motion for summary judgment does not contain either evidence or argument showing that the truth of his allegations is beyond genuine dispute. Further, summary judgment is disfavored where, as here, the parties have not yet had an opportunity to complete discovery. See, e.g., Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that “summary judgment is disfavored where relevant evidence remains to be discovered . . . .”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Defendant’s motion for leave to amend answer, ECF No. 35, is granted. 2. The Clerk of Court shall file defendant’s amended answer, found at ECF No. 35-1 at 4-9, onthe docket. It should be title “Amended Answer to Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint” and will be the operative answer going forward. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 31, 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 days of 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.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ July 7, 2022 q_—— JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE