Robinson v. Pickett

Citation: 16 F. App'x 577Docket: No. 99-56747; D.C. No. CV-94-04234-DT

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 4, 2001; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Anthony La Wayne Robinson appeals the district court’s judgment that dismissed his federal civil rights claims and granted summary judgment on his state tort claims related to alleged excessive force by correctional officers D.E. Redmon, Michael Garza, and Joseph Dunmire. Robinson contends the district court neglected his Fourteenth Amendment claim and wrongly denied his motion to compel discovery responses, while also asserting errors in the summary judgment regarding his state claims under the California Tort Claims Act (CTCA). The appellate court affirms the dismissal of the federal claims, stating that Robinson's excessive force claims were correctly analyzed under the Eighth Amendment, as prison inmates are specifically protected against such claims, not under the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, the court declines to consider new Fourteenth Amendment arguments raised for the first time on appeal, including claims regarding the officers' motions for summary judgment and procedural violations. Regarding discovery, Robinson's objections about alleged perjury and failure to respond to discovery were not previously raised, thus not addressed on appeal. The court reviewed the district court's denial of Robinson's motion to compel and found no abuse of discretion, as the motion was filed nearly two years after the officers' compliance deadline. The appellate court reverses the summary judgment on the state tort claims.

The district court granted summary judgment on Robinson's state tort claims, ruling that he failed to comply with the California Tort Claims Act (CTCA), which mandates that claims against public entities must first be presented to the entity (Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.4). Robinson asserted he had duly filed a claim with the Government Claims Division of the State Board of Control, supporting this with two pieces of evidence: an unsigned letter from the Board dated April 12, 1994, acknowledging a claim filed two months after his injury, and a duplicate of the claim itself, which detailed the alleged assault. The admissibility of the duplicate claim was contested, with the officers arguing it was submitted late. The court found the claim was timely offered, as it was presented before the objection deadline and before the district court's summary judgment review. 

However, the duplicate claim was deemed insufficiently authenticated by both the Magistrate Judge and District Judge, as it lacked an official stamp from the Board, which is necessary for public records. Although the claim could not be authenticated purely as a public record, Robinson's affidavit was deemed adequate to authenticate the document based on his personal knowledge. Despite this, the affidavit did not serve to conclusively prove the claim was filed with the Board. Nevertheless, the Board’s confirming letter supports Robinson's assertion of having filed the claim.

Evidence presented raises a material fact issue that prevents summary judgment regarding Robinson's failure to file a claim with the state, as established in Simkins v. NevadaCare, Inc. The officers argue that Robinson's claim did not align with the state claims in his second amended complaint, referencing the California Tort Claims Act (CTCA), which requires that court allegations must reflect the written administrative claims. However, Robinson's claim sufficiently met CTCA requirements, as it included relevant details such as the date, location, general injury description, and known public employee names. The claim mirrored the alleged abuses forming the basis of his state tort claims, providing adequate notice to the state. The officers' assertion that the claim was defective for not naming defendants Garza and Redmon is unfounded, as the CTCA only mandates names if known. Consequently, Robinson's submitted claim satisfies CTCA standards and supports his state tort causes of action. The district court’s grant of summary judgment is reversed on these grounds. While the judgment dismissing Robinson’s federal civil rights claim is affirmed, the court did not err in denying his motion to compel. The case is remanded, with the disposition designated as not suitable for publication or citation in this circuit.