Fanaro v. County of Contra Costa

Background

Jearhamel Jordan Fanaro brought claims against several defendants, including the County of Contra Costa, based on an alleged assault while he was housed at the County’s Martinez Detention Facility. Fanaro identified defendant inmate Thomas Leon as one of the alleged attackers.

Leon’s arguments

Leon filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. He first argued that Fanaro’s second amended complaint should be dismissed for failing to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that this exhaustion requirement applies only to people who are prisoners when they file suit. Fanaro’s original complaint stated that he was out of custody, and Leon presented no facts indicating otherwise.

Leon also argued that he was entitled to summary judgment because he had not personally participated in conduct that violated Fanaro’s federal rights. He contended that Fanaro lacked admissible evidence showing Leon’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy or assault.

Court’s reasoning

Fanaro responded that discovery had only recently begun and that he needed additional time to develop evidence and identify factual disputes. His counsel’s declaration stated that Leon had not responded to a request to meet and confer or provided required initial disclosures. Fanaro also sought discovery from Contra Costa County that he expected to receive on December 9, 2019.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), a court may delay ruling on summary judgment when the opposing party explains why it cannot yet present facts needed to oppose the motion. Because discovery was still ongoing, the court found that granting Leon’s motion at that stage would be premature.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick denied Leon’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice. The order permits Leon to file a new summary-judgment motion after discovery has progressed, but no later than 30 days after discovery closes. A footnote states that the court granted Leon permission to file a second motion even though the court’s standing order generally allows only one summary-judgment motion per party, because Leon was proceeding without counsel. The opinion does not separately state a disposition for Leon’s motion to dismiss.