Rhodes v. Ford
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-03128
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Rhodes v. Ford, Judge Hamilton granted in part and denied in part Ford’s request to file a second summary-judgment motion.
D. Ford may file a revised second summary-judgment motion limited to whether he knew about Rhodes’s grievance; Rhodes may respond, while Ford may not use that motion to argue that Rhodes suffered no harm.
What happened
Rhodes v. Ford is a civil-rights case brought by a state prisoner without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law. The remaining claim alleges that D. Ford retaliated against Rhodes after Rhodes filed a grievance.
Ford sought permission to file a second motion asking the court to decide the case without a trial. Ford wanted to present evidence that he was not present when Rhodes was interviewed about the grievance. Rhodes pointed to evidence that could show Ford knew about the grievance.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted in part and denied in part Ford’s request. Ford may file a revised motion about whether he knew about the grievance, but may not use a second motion to argue that Rhodes suffered no harm. The court struck Ford’s already-filed proposed motion and set deadlines for a revised motion and responses.
The detailed version
- Rhodes v. Ford · No. 4:20-cv-03128
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 14, 2024
Background
Rhodes, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the court ruled on Ford’s first motion for summary judgment, the case continued on Rhodes’s retaliation claim concerning an incident on January 16, 2020. The court had found a genuine dispute about whether Ford knew Rhodes had filed a grievance against him and then issued a false Rules Violation Report in retaliation.
Ford asked for permission to file a second motion for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute requiring a trial. Ford said newly developed evidence would show that he was not working and therefore was not in the law library on January 14, 2020, when Rhodes said he was interviewed about the grievance in Ford’s presence. Rhodes opposed the request and identified evidence that he argued showed Ford was aware of the grievance.
Ruling
The court held that district courts have discretion to allow successive summary-judgment motions and concluded that a second motion concerning Ford’s awareness would not be frivolous or merely repetitive. The court therefore GRANTED in part Ford’s motion for leave to file a second summary-judgment motion. The permitted motion may address whether Ford knew Rhodes had filed a grievance, including an interview involving J. Cummings.
The court DENIED the motion for leave to the extent Ford sought to argue that Rhodes suffered no harm. The court reasoned that this issue did not involve new arguments from the first summary-judgment briefing and that Rhodes also alleged harm from the confiscation of his legal materials, an allegation Ford’s proposed motion did not address.
The court STRICKEN the proposed second summary-judgment motion already filed at Docket No. 129 and directed Ford to file a revised motion by March 21, 2024, removing the portion concerning whether Rhodes suffered harm. Rhodes’s opposition was due April 4, 2024, and Ford’s reply was due April 11, 2024. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton stated that the court would set a hearing if necessary.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.