Luckert v. Gutierrez

Background

Michael L. Luckert, a detainee proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The remaining claims concerned allegations that Gutierrez used excessive force at a public library and county jail. Luckert originally made allegations about jail force against Mendoza, but during summary judgment he said he had confused Mendoza and Gutierrez. The court allowed him to switch the allegations between the defendants.

On December 28, 2022, the court granted summary judgment to Mendoza and dismissed Mendoza with prejudice. The court denied summary judgment to Gutierrez, so the excessive-force claims against Gutierrez continued. The opinion also refers to Mendoza as having been dismissed on December 8, 2022, creating a date inconsistency in the court's discussion.

In 2024, Luckert again argued that Mendoza, rather than Gutierrez, had used excessive force at the jail. The court treated his filings as seeking relief from the earlier judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and permission to amend under Rule 15. Luckert also sought a court-appointed medical expert deposition and other trial-related relief.

Rule 60 and reconsideration

The court denied Luckert's request to recall Mendoza under Rule 60(b). The court held that the request was untimely to the extent it relied on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. Luckert had possessed the arrest card from the beginning of the case and had not used discovery to identify the person who completed the relevant portion. The court also found no fraud because Mendoza had not withheld the evidence and had disclosed his involvement in a declaration during summary judgment.

The court further concluded that the other Rule 60(b) grounds did not apply and that the motion would fail even if it were timely. The court also denied leave to seek reconsideration under the Northern District of California's local rule because Luckert had not shown a material change in fact or law, newly emerged evidence or law, or a failure by the court to consider material facts.

Amendment under Rule 15

The court denied Luckert's motion to amend to add or recall Mendoza. Mendoza had already been dismissed with prejudice, and the court said that a claim dismissed with prejudice ordinarily must be revived through reconsideration rather than amendment. The court also denied reconsideration to the extent Luckert's filings could be read that way.

Separately, the court ruled that amendment would be improper on the merits of the amendment request. Luckert had already amended once and had previously been allowed to switch the allegations. The court found undue delay because he waited eighteen months after summary judgment to seek the change, prejudice because discovery was closed and trial was approaching, and futility because the arrest card did not support identifying Mendoza as the person responsible for the alleged conduct.

Other motions and case schedule

The court denied the motion for a court-appointed medical expert deposition with prejudice, explaining that public funds were not available to finance an expert for a party in this private civil case. The court denied the pending motions in limine without prejudice.

The court granted in part the defendant's motion to continue trial. It vacated the July 29, 2024 trial date and stated that it would set a new pretrial and trial date if necessary after ruling on another summary-judgment motion. The court permitted Gutierrez to file an additional summary-judgment or other dispositive motion addressing the library and jail events, and allowed discovery concerning Luckert's injuries to proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also set briefing requirements for the new motion and reminded Luckert that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and keeping the court informed of any address change.