Ejigu

MEMORANDUM *

Jared Ejigu appeals the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in his second 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants’ attempted cover-up during the first action caused him to inadequately settle his first action and denied him access to the courts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo. Kotrous v. Goss-Jewett Co. of N. Cal, 523 F.3d 924 , 929 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

Ejigu argues that the district court erred by holding that he could not prove that the alleged cover-up caused any constitutional violation. To prevail on his claim, Ejigu must establish that the city defendants’ alleged cover-up caused him to lose or inadequately settle his prior meritorious action. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621 , 625 (9th Cir.1988); Dooley v. Reiss, 736 F.2d 1392, 1394-95 (9th Cir.1984). The record in the first action 1 establishes that Ejigu’s own lack of diligence in conducting discovery prevented him from amending the complaint to name the proper officer defendants. Although the City was not diligent in identifying the officers in the photograph, Ejigu waited until the end of discovery to depose any defendants.…

dissenting:

A district court may not grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings unless the pleadings themselves establish that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir.2008). The gist of plaintiffs complaint is that he was forced to take a significantly lower settlement than one to which he was entitled because the city engaged in an egregious coverup of the identity of the officers involved in the underlying event. The plaintiffs allegations state a cause of action. Delew v. Wagner, 143 F.3d 1219, 1222-23 (9th Cir.1998); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621 , 625 (9th Cir.1988). In my view, it does not matter that the plaintiff uncovered the city’s misconduct before he settled if he can prove that the misconduct was a significant cause of the reduced settlement. Indeed, plaintiffs access-to-the-court claim could not have been brought, or even considered ripe, before the settlement was reached because, until then, the damage had not yet been done. Id.

And while plaintiffs counsel may have contributed to the problem by not undertaking certain discovery sooner, that fact…