United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [Dkt. No. 127.].
GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant County of San Diego's ("Defendant") Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Dkt. No. 127.) Plaintiff Paul Hupp ("Plaintiff") opposes. (Dkt. No. 145.) Defendant replied. (Dkt. No. 149.) Plaintiff has also submitted two requests for judicial notice providing supplementary authority. (Dkt. Nos. 164, 232.) The motion is submitted on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). After a review of the briefs, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to Plaintiff's fourth claim for relief.
On November 15, 2010, the San Diego County Superior Court entered a three year restraining order against Plaintiff, ordering him not to contact or harass Administrative Law Judge Freedman ("ALJ Freedman"). (Dkt. No. 64, "TAC" ¶ 26.) On July 20, 2011, ALJ Freedman applied for contempt of court charges against Plaintiff based on accusations that Plaintiff sent ALJ Freedman four letters in violation of the restraining order. (TAC ¶ 27.)
Judge John Meyer ("Judge Meyer") presided over the contempt proceedings. (TAC ¶ 32.) On November 16, 2011, Judge Meyer found Plaintiff guilty of violating the restraining order beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced Plaintiff to 25 days in custody and a $5, 000 fine. (TAC ¶ 32.) Judge Meyer's order stated: "Respondent is not entitled to any custody credits and shall serve all 25 days with no early release, per Court." (Id.)
On January 3, 2011, Plaintiff reported to the San Diego County Sheriff's Department ("SDSD" or "Defendant") to serve his 25 day sentence. (TAC ¶ 37.) Plaintiff alleges informing SDSD that they had to apply his custodial credits under California Penal Code section 4019 ("PC 4019 credits"). (Id.) Plaintiff alleges section 4019 entitled Plaintiff to "good time custody credits of one day for every one day of actual time served." (TAC ¶ 32.) However, SDSD refused to apply the credits, citing Judge Meyer's order. (TAC ¶ 37.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant's refusal to apply his custodial credits under California Penal Code § 4019 violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (TAC ¶¶ 77-87, "Fourth Cause of Action.")
On February 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants San Diego District Attorney, San Diego County Office of Assigned Counsel, San Diego Superior Court, San Diego County Sheriff's Department, San Diego Police Department, Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey Freedman, Judge John Meyer, Deputy District Attorney James Patrick Romo, Deputy Attorney General Drcar, Charlie Wetzel, William J. Kiernan, and P. Meyer alleging causes of action for violations of his civil rights and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Dkt. No. 1.)
On April 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint ("FAC"). (Dkt. No. 4.) After the Court dismissed part of Plaintiff's FAC (Dkt. No. 35), Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint ("SAC") against Defendants San Diego County,  San Diego Police Department, James Patrick Romo, Charlie Wetzel, William J. Kiernan, and Peter Myers, asserting eleven causes of action. (Dkt. No. 47.) On July 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which the Court granted. (Dkt. Nos. 55, 61.) On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint naming the City of San Diego as a defendant in place of Defendant San Diego Police Department and naming "Raymond Wetzel a/k/a Charlie Wetzel" in place of Defendant Charlie Wetzel. (Dkt. No. 64, Third Amended Complaint, "TAC".) Plaintiff also added a new cause of action against Defendant San Diego County and new Defendants the City of Beaumont and Joseph Cargel for violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id.) Defendant County of San Diego filed an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint on September 12, 2012. (Dkt. No. 71.)
On September 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 66.) On September 26, 2012, the Court denied the motion without prejudice and directed Plaintiff to serve upon counsel for Defendants a proposed amended complaint and to obtain a hearing date on a motion for leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 84.) On October 22, 2012, this case was transferred to the undersigned judge. (Dkt. No. 94.) Plaintiff filed two motions for an extension of time to file a fourth amended complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 93, 98.) On November 19, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a fourth amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 101.) Following Plaintiff's third motion for extension of time to file a fourth amended complaint, the Court denied the motion and ordered Plaintiff to file a fourth amended complaint within five days of the order being electronically docketed. (Dkt. No. 111.) Plaintiff failed to file a fourth amended complaint. The TAC is now the operative pleading in this matter.
On June 27, 2013, Defendant County of San Diego filed the present motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), as to Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action in the TAC. (Dkt. No. 127.)
I. Legal Standard
Rule 12(c) ...