United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 64) GRANT DEFENDANT DORAN'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 100) GRANT, IN PART, AND DENY, IN PART, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (ECF NO. 113) DENY DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF ERRATA (ECF NOS. 116, 119, 121)
MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 8.) The action proceeds on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint against Defendant Doran on a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim. (ECF Nos. 8 & 9.)
Before the Court are Plaintiff's June 16, 2014 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 64.) and Defendant Doran's December 2, 2014 cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 100.). Both parties filed oppositions and replies. (ECF Nos. 100, 112, & 116.) Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice of certain exhibits and a notice of errata. (ECF Nos. 113 & 119.) Defendant objected to and moved to strike a number of Plaintiff's declarations. (ECF Nos. 116 & 121.) Plaintiff responded to these objections. (ECF Nos. 120 & 122.) The matters are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
II. LEGAL STANDARD - MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Any party may move for summary judgment, and "[t]he [C]ourt shall grant summary 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). Each party's position, whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts 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 absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
"Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the movant must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party." Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). If the burden of proof at trial rests with the nonmoving party, then the moving party need only point to "an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must point to "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. ( quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986)).
In evaluating the evidence, "the [C]ourt does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, " and "it draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Id.
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Court finds the following relevant facts are undisputed:
Plaintiff was an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison ("KVSP") from February 2009 until October 2012. He currently is an inmate at California State Prison - Los Angeles County. Defendant K. Doran was the Inmate Assignments Lieutenant at KVSP during the relevant time period. Defendant's position required her to ensure that inmate assignments were filled and ethnically balanced.
Prior to an inmate receiving a job, he is placed on the eligibility waiting list. When positions become available, Defendant reviews a computer printout of eligible inmates. Defendant selects the first available inmate for the position. If that inmate has requested another assignment, then Defendant will select the next eligible inmate for the position. If no eligible inmates are on the waiting list, the supervisor for the assignment may hire someone for the position. Once an inmate is assigned a job, he is removed from all waiting lists except for Education or Vocational positions.
Plaintiff held a porter job while at KVSP. Plaintiff was never on the waiting list to become a library clerk between 2009 and 2012. Defendant's only interaction with Plaintiff related to Plaintiff's CDCR Form 602 grievance in which he requested that inmate clerks in the C-Facility library be racially balanced. Defendant denied the grievance, informing Plaintiff that there were currently no vacant clerk positions, that she could not un-assign a current inmate to the position ...