Gregory Franklin v. J. Jimenez
708 F. App'x 383
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Gregory Allen Franklin, proceeding pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging retaliation, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and due process violations related to a quarterly package and prison disciplinary proceedings.
- Defendants named in the appeal include prison officials Hughey, Molina‑Mata, Maciel, and Jimenez; some alleged prior complained‑of officers were not parties to this action.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims and denied Franklin leave to amend, a preliminary injunction against officers at another prison, and extensions of scheduling deadlines.
- Franklin appealed the summary judgment and the ancillary refusals (leave to amend, preliminary injunction, scheduling relief).
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and the district court’s discretionary denials for abuse of discretion, and affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation by Hughey, Molina‑Mata, Maciel, Jimenez | Franklin contends prior complaints (2007) motivated retaliatory acts | Defendants argued the 2007 complaint was not the motivating cause and no causal link shown | Summary judgment for defendants: Franklin failed to show protected speech was the motivating factor |
| Deliberate indifference (Hughey, Molina‑Mata, Maciel) | Franklin asserts defendants knew of and ignored serious medical needs | Defendants contend no evidence they knew of or disregarded an excessive risk | Summary judgment for defendants: no triable issue that they knew and disregarded serious risk |
| Due process — failure to deliver quarterly package (Maciel) | Franklin says loss deprived him of property without due process | Defendants point to adequate post‑deprivation remedies under California law | Summary judgment for Maciel: California supplies adequate post‑deprivation remedy, no § 1983 due process claim |
| Due process — disciplinary proceedings (Jimenez) | Franklin claims procedural safeguards not provided and findings lacked support | Defendants contend procedures were satisfied and findings had some evidence | Summary judgment for Jimenez: no triable dispute that procedural requirements or "some evidence" standard were violated |
| Denial of leave to amend | Franklin sought to amend complaint | Defendants opposed; district court found amendment futile and prejudicial | Denial affirmed: amendment would be futile and would unduly prejudice defendants |
| Preliminary injunction request (officers at another prison) | Franklin sought injunctive relief against other prison officers | Defendants argued Winter factors not satisfied and undue breadth | Denial affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion |
| Extension of scheduling order / discovery | Franklin asked for more time/discovery | Defendants opposed; court applied scheduling‑order standards | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion under applicable standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing cross‑motions for summary judgment)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of prisoner retaliation claim)
- Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 1995) (speech must be motivating factor for retaliation claim)
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge and disregard of excessive risk)
- McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (definition of serious medical need)
- WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (overruling context referenced)
- Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 1994) (California provides adequate post‑deprivation remedies)
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) (disciplinary decisions satisfy due process if supported by "some evidence")
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (factors justifying denial of leave to amend)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend to pro se plaintiffs)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction factors)
- Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750 (9th Cir. 1982) (scope of appellate review for preliminary injunction rulings)
- Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard for modifying scheduling orders)
- Qualls ex rel. Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1994) (standard for additional discovery)