Robles v. County of Sacramento

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 PABLO ROBLES, No. 2:17-cv-01580-JAM-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SHERIFF SCOTT JONES, in his official 15 capacity, DEPUTY HARDY (Badge No. 1434), DEPUTY DANIEL 16 (Badge No. 645), DEPUTY MOVAHAN (Badge No. 452), 17 DEPUTY PAM (Badge No. 31), SGT. M. LOPEZ (Badge No. 18 179), DEPUTY MATOON (Badge No. 1095), OFFICER S. ROBY 19 (Badge No. 529), and Does 140, inclusive , [20] Defendants. [21] 22 Pablo Robles (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against the 23 County of Sacramento (“the County” or “Defendant”), alleging 24 Defendant unlawfully imprisoned him without charges after a DUI 25 arrest on April 3, 2016. First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 18. 26 Defendant thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment. Mot. 27 for Summ. J., ECF No. 32. Plaintiff opposed the motion. ECF No. 28 36. The Court held oral argument on Defendant’s motion on 1 February 11, 2020. The Court ruled from the bench and denied 2 Defendant’s motion. ECF No. 44; see also Transcript of Hearing 3 (“Transcript”), ECF No. 49. 4 Defendant now moves the Court to reconsider its ruling 5 denying summary judgment. Mot., ECF No. 56. Plaintiff opposes 6 this motion. Opp’n., ECF No. 57. For the reasons set forth 7 below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for reconsideration.1 [8] 9 I. OPINION 10 A. Legal Standard 11 A district court will not grant a motion for 12 reconsideration unless (1) it is presented with newly discovered 13 evidence; (2) the Court committed clear error; or (3) there was 14 an intervening change in the controlling law. School Dist. No. 15 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 , 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Clear 16 error exists “when the reviewing court is left with the definite 17 and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re 18 Adamson Apparel Inc., 785 F.3d 1285, 1290 (9th Cir. 2015) 19 (internal citations omitted). Moreover, Local Rule 230(j) 20 requires a party filing a motion for reconsideration to show 21 “new or different facts or circumstances [] claimed to exist 22 which did not exist or were not shown upon prior motion, or what 23 other grounds exist for the motion.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 24 230(j). 25 /// [26] 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for May 5, 2020. 1 B. Judicial Notice 2 Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of: (1) a 3 news article alleging Defendant held another “DUI suspect for 27 4 days without charges” and (2) a copy of the complaint that 5 person filed against Defendant. Req. for Judicial Notice, ECF 6 No. 58. 7 A district court may take judicial notice of a fact that is 8 “not subject to reasonable dispute because it can be accurately 9 and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot 10 reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). It is 11 well-established that “a court may take judicial notice of 12 matters of public record.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 13 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). Both the article and the complaint 14 are matters of public record—the Court can therefore take 15 judicial notice of these documents. 16 However, as Defendant points out, a Court cannot take 17 judicial notice of the truth asserted in those documents. 18 Reply, ECF No. 60, at 2 (citing Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum 19 of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010)). Thus, 20 the Court will only take judicial notice of the existence of 21 these documents, but not of the truth of any facts or 22 allegations asserted in them. 23 C. Analysis 24 Defendant argues the Court committed clear error: (1) by 25 finding a triable issue of fact despite holding “this case does 26 not flow from any policy of inaction based on Proposition 47,” 27 and (2) by “supplanting its own interpretation” of the 28 Sacramento County Superior Court order at issue. Mot. at 4-5. 1 Defendant does not identify any new legal or factual issues that 2 were not raised in the earlier briefings. Instead, Defendant 3 simply contends the Court got it wrong. 4 But Defendant fails to prove the Court committed clear 5 error when denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 6 First, for the same reasons articulated at the hearing, the 7 Court finds there is a triable issue of fact as to the Monell 8 claim despite this case not flowing from any policy or inaction 9 based on Proposition 47. See Transcript at 17. Here, there is 10 a dispute of material fact as to whether the Defendant’s 11 practice of relying on JIMS was unreasonable, “and that’s why 12 summary judgment cannot be granted.” Transcript at 18:16-20. 13 It is up to a jury to decide whether Defendant’s use of the 14 system was reasonable. Id.; see also Greene v. Allstate Ins. 15 Co., 242 F.3d 381 , *1 (9th Cir. 2000)(noting “questions of 16 reasonableness are usually questions of fact for the jury.”). 17 Second, the Court did not “supplant its own interpretation” 18 of the Sacramento County Superior Court Order. If Defendant had 19 carefully read the transcript at the page it cited in support of 20 this contention, it would find that the Court prefaced that 21 statement with the following: “[t]he Plaintiff argues that 22 because the order said . . . .” Transcript at 20:15-17. 23 Accordingly, the Court attributed such interpretation to the 24 facts produced by Plaintiff. The Court did not concoct this 25 interpretation on its own as Defendant erroneously suggests. 26 For this reason alone, Defendant’s second argument fails. 27 Defendant has failed to prove the Court committed clear 28 error when it denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. WAG PUVA OUUVEAINIT □□ □□□ DONO te OY VI 1] As it also did not contend any newly discovered evidence or an 2 intervening change in controlling law warranted reconsideration, 3 this motion is DENIED. [4] 5 Il. ORDER 6 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 7 Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: May 18, 2020 10 kA 1 teiren staves odermacr 7008