United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS RELATING TO ALLEGED DUE PROCESS
VIOLATIONS [ECF Nos. 36, 37]
Mario King is a state prisoner and appearing pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
April 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed two separate documents
entitled, “Motion for the Court to Take Notice of
Evidence, ” and “Notice Re Process Denied.”
(ECF Nos. 36, 37.) From review of Plaintiff's motions,
the Court cannot discern the exact relief Plaintiff is
requesting other than a finding that Defendant Wadkins failed
Plaintiff's due process rights. Given Plaintiff's pro
se status, the Court will construe Plaintiff's motion as
a motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons,
Plaintiff's motions must be denied.
action is proceeding against Defendant W.S. Wadkins for
alleged due process violations relating to a rules violation
for fighting with another inmate.
Wadkins filed an answer to the complaint on August 18, 2016,
and on August 23, 2016, the Court issued the discovery and
party may move for summary judgment, and the Court 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)
(quotation marks omitted); Washington Mut. Inc. v.
U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). 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
presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing
party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
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. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch.
Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); accord
Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th
judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court
does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting
evidence, Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984 (quotation
marks and citation omitted), and it must draw all inferences
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and
determine whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes
entry of judgment, Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach
v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d at 942 (quotation
marks and citation omitted).
regard to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, as the
party with the burden of persuasion at trial, Plaintiff must
establish “beyond controversy every essential element
of” his affirmative claims. S. Cal. Gas Co. v. City
of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting
W. Shwarzer, California Practice Guide: Federal Civil
Procedure Before Trial § 14:124-127 (2001)). The moving
party's evidence is judged by the same standard of proof
applicable at trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
has failed to meet his burden of proof as the moving party on
summary judgment. Plaintiff simply restates the allegations
set forth in the operative complaint, namely, that staff had
a hearing on his rules violation for fighting without
presenting exculpatory evidence and refers only to the rules
violation report, informational chrono, and a medical
evaluation relating to the fight. Plaintiff, as the moving
party, is required to establish every element of his claim,
showing that there are no disputed issues of facts.
Plaintiff's motion is merely a repeat of the allegations
and evidence presented in the operative complaint, which does
not entitled Plaintiff to summary judgment as a matter of
law. Further, Plaintiff has failed to refer to any specific
undisputed facts, and has failed to submit a separate
statement of undisputed facts. Such a statement “shall
enumerate discretely each of the specific material facts
relied upon in support of the motion and cite the particular
portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition,
interrogatory, answer, admission or other document relied
upon to establish that fact.” Local Rule 260(a).
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden on
summary judgment and his motions must be denied.