Tyrone Johnson v. County of San Bernardino
20-55186
| 9th Cir. | Oct 15, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Tyrone Johnson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging Deputy Paul Casas stopped him without probable cause and beat him with punches, kicks, and a blunt metal object.
- The district court set an amendment cutoff; Johnson moved nearly a year after that date to amend to add an allegation that he was tasered. The district court denied leave to amend as untimely for lack of good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
- Casas and the County moved for summary judgment on the claims as pleaded; they produced evidence refuting the Complaint’s beating allegation, and Johnson conceded those allegations were false in his opposition papers.
- The district court granted summary judgment because the pleaded claims had been disproven and there was no genuine issue for trial.
- The district court refused to consider the taser theory raised for the first time in Johnson’s summary-judgment opposition because it was not pled in the Complaint.
- Johnson also argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the civil case; the court rejected this because there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil damages suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of leave to amend after deadline | Johnson: late amendment to add taser claim should be allowed | Casas/County: amendment untimely; Johnson lacked diligence/good cause under Rule 16(b) | Denial affirmed — Johnson failed to show diligence/good cause |
| Summary judgment on pleaded excessive-force claims | Johnson: factual disputes exist about force used | Casas/County: evidence disproves Complaint allegations; Johnson conceded falsity | Summary judgment affirmed — no genuine issue on pleaded claims |
| Consideration of taser theory raised in opposition | Johnson: court should consider taser allegations in opposition | Casas/County: new theory not pled; barred at summary-judgment stage | Court refused to consider taser theory — plaintiff cannot pursue unpled theory at MSJ |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel claim | Johnson: IAC in district court entitles him to reversal | Casas/County: no constitutional right to counsel in civil damages actions | IAC claim rejected as legally unavailable; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- AE ex rel. Hernandez v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631 (9th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review of denial of leave to amend under Rule 16)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir.) (good-cause/diligence standard for untimely amendments)
- AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir.) (diligence inquiry when party knew or should have known facts supporting amendment)
- Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir.) (knowledge-of-facts standard relevant to amendment diligence)
- United States v. Various Slot Machines on Guam, 658 F.2d 697 (9th Cir.) (court need not accept allegations incontrovertibly shown to be false on summary judgment)
- Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff barred from pursuing unpled theories at summary judgment)
- Nicholson v. Rushen, 767 F.2d 1426 (9th Cir.) (no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in civil damages suits)