Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03893/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03893-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The argument by Foley and Steele is contained in a consolidated reply filed by the

County, Rupf, Foley and Steel. Blush filed a separate reply.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY CLOUTHIER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-3893 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE:

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; CONTINUING

HEARING ON MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court are five motions for summary judgment, filed June 22, 2007 on

behalf of, respectively, defendants County of Contra Costa (“County”), Sheriff Warren Rupf

(“Rupf”), Sheriff’s Deputy Matt Foley (“Foley”), Sheriff’s Deputy Erik Steele (“Steele”), and

licensed mental health specialist Margaret Blush (“Blush”). Plaintiffs have filed a

consolidated opposition to four of the five motions; plaintiffs state they do not oppose

Rupf’s motion. 

In their respective motions for summary judgment, Blush, Foley, and Steele raised

no issue with respect to qualified immunity. Each such defendant, however, makes a

qualified immunity argument in their respective replies.1

 Ordinarily, the Court would not

address an argument raised for the first time in a reply. See, e.g., Lentini v. California

Case 3:06-cv-03893-MMC Document 71 Filed 07/27/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Center for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837, 843 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2004) (refusing to consider

argument raised for first time in reply because opposing party had no opportunity to

respond). With respect to qualified immunity, however, the Supreme Court has “stressed

the importance of resolving [such] immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in

litigation.” See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). 

Consequently, the Court will consider such arguments and will afford plaintiffs an

opportunity to respond. Because the first part of the test for qualified immunity overlaps

with the merits of plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, see Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201 (holding “initial

inquiry” is whether “the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional

right”), and the parties have had an adequate opportunity to address the merits of such

claims, the parties shall limit their supplemental briefing to the second part of the test for

qualified immunity, specifically, “whether the right was clearly established” so that “it would

be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he

confronted.” See id. at 201-202.

Accordingly, no later than August 3, 2007, plaintiffs may file a consolidated

supplemental opposition, of no more than eight pages in length, addressing the qualified

immunity arguments raised by Blush, Foley, and Steele. No later than August 10, 2007,

Foley and Steele may file a consolidated supplemental reply of no more than four pages in

length, and Blush may file a supplemental reply of no more than four pages in length. In

light of the need for additional briefing, the August 3, 2007 hearing on the motions for

summary judgment, as well as the August 3, 2007 case management conference, are

hereby CONTINUED to August 17, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03893-MMC Document 71 Filed 07/27/07 Page 2 of 2