Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00724/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00724-15/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In this action, Plaintiff claims Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching 

his bedroom during a parole search associated with a cotenant. (Doc. 26)

A. JURISDICTION/ VENUE

The Court has jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 626 and 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(a). Further, Plaintiff’s claims arise out of events that occurred in Kern County, 

California. Accordingly, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California sitting in Bakersfield. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

B. JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff did not include demand for jury trial in any of his complaints and is amenable to a bench 

STEVEN WHITFIELD, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-0724 - JLT

PRETRIAL ORDER

Deadlines:

Motions in Limine Filing: 10/30/15

Oppositions to Motions in Limine: 11/13/15

Hearing on Motions in Limine: 11/30/15, 10 a.m.

Trial Submissions: 11/30/15

Jury trial: 12/7/15, 8:30 a.m.

Case 1:13-cv-00724-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 14
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

trial. (Doc. 8 at 7.) Defendants have demanded a trial by jury. (Doc. 39 at 4) Thus, trial will be by jury.

C. UNDISPUTED FACTS

1. In May 2013, Plaintiff rented a room in a home at 305 Oakdale Drive, Bakersfield,

California.

2. Plaintiff rented the room from Shirley Wells.

3. Ms. Wells owned the home at 305 Oakdale Drive.

4. In May 2013, Ms. Wells also leased a room in the home to her brother, Eddie Wells.

5. Eddie Wells was on parole in May 2013, and under the supervision of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) Division of Adult Parole Operations.

6. Eddie Wells’s parole agreement specified that CDCR officials could conduct lawful 

random parole searches of his residence.

7. In May 2013, Defendant Aguilera worked for CDCR as a Parole Agent I in the 

Bakersfield office.

8. On May 1, 2013, Defendant Aguilera visited the home at 305 Oakdale Drive to conduct 

a lawful random parole search of the premises.

9. On that day, Defendant Aguilera inspected all areas of the residence except for two 

bedrooms, which were locked.

10. Eddie Wells accompanied Defendant Aguilera as she performed the parole search on 

May 1, 2013.

11. When Defendant Aguilera asked Eddie Wells if she could look inside the two locked 

bedrooms, Mr. Wells told her that he did not have keys to the bedrooms and that they did not belong to 

him.

12. In response, Defendant Aguilera told Mr. Wells that she would return to the home the 

following week, and that she would need to look inside the bedrooms.

13. The next day, Plaintiff and Shirley Wells went to the Division of Adult Parole 

Operations’ Bakersfield Office, and they spoke to Defendant Hernandez.

14. In May 2013, Defendant Hernandez worked as a Supervising Parole Agent III in the 

Bakersfield office.

Case 1:13-cv-00724-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 14
3

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

15. In May 2013, Hernandez served as a second-level supervisor to Agent Aguilera.

16. When Hernandez talked with Plaintiff and Shirley Wells, he explained to them that it 

was standard practice for parole agents to inspect all rooms of a home the first time the agent performed 

a site inspection at a parolee’s residence.

17. Defendant Hernandez also explained the various security reasons why this practice was 

in place.

18. For his part, Plaintiff explained to Hernandez all of the reasons that, in his view, any 

search of Plaintiff’s bedroom would violate his privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment.

19. On May 10, 2013, Defendant Aguilera returned to the home at 305 Oakdale Drive for a 

follow-up parole search.

20. Defendant Aceves accompanied Defendant Aguilera for this second parole search.

21. With the exception of the two locked bedrooms, Aguilera and Aceves performed a 

visual inspection throughout the residence, as Defendant Aguilera had done nine days prior.

22. Defendant Aguilera asked Plaintiff if she could conduct a visual inspection of his 

bedroom area.

23. Defendants Aguilera and Aceves performed a visual inspection of Plaintiff’s bedroom 

area.

D. DISPUTED FACTS

All other facts are in dispute, including:

1. Whether Plaintiff consented to a search of his bedroom on May10, 2013.

2. What was said between Plaintiff and Defendant Aguilera at the threshold of his bedroom 

on May 10, 2013.

3. What Defendant Aceves was wearing during the parole search on May 10, 2013.

4. Whether Aguilera and Aceves threatened or coerced Plaintiff into allowing them to 

perform a visual inspection of his bedroom at 305 Oakdale Drive.

5. Whether Aguilera or Aceves touched any of Plaintiff’s belongings during their 

inspection of his bedroom on May 10, 2013, or whether their search was limited to a visual inspection.

Case 1:13-cv-00724-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/01/15 Page 3 of 14
4

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

E. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES1

1. Whether Plaintiff consented to a visual inspection of his bedroom on May 10, 2013.

2. Whether a search warrant was required before Aguilera and Aceves conducted a visual 

inspection of Plaintiff’s bedroom on May 10, 2013.

3. Whether any of the three Defendants conspired to violate Plaintiff’s rights.

4. The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy 

in the bedroom that he rented at 305 Oakdale Drive, but dispute the scope of that reasonable 

expectation of privacy.

5. Whether Aguilera and Aceves’s inspection of Plaintiff’s bedroom exceeded Plaintiff’s 

reasonable expectation of privacy in his bedroom area.

6. Whether Aguilera and Aceves’s inspection of Plaintiff’s bedroom area violated the

California Parole Manual.

7. Whether Plaintiff suffered any harm as a result of any Defendants’ conduct.

8. Whether actions taken by any of the three Defendants’ were malicious, oppressive,

or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.

F. RELIEF SOUGHT

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $25,000 per defendant, general2

damages in the amount of $25,000 per defendant, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs related to the 

lawsuit, and any other relief to which she may be entitled. (Doc. 26 at 6.) Notably, Plaintiff is 

representing himself and, therefore, is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. Defendants seek 

judgment in their favor and an award of costs.

///

///

 

1 While the parties offer the following list as disputed evidentiary issues, none are. Rather they appear to be

disputed factual issues and/or disputed legal issues.

2 Compensatory damages are made up of general damages and special damages. Special damages are those that 

arise as a consequence of the alleged events, such as property damage or doctor bills incurred as a result of physical injuries. 

General damages are designed to compensate a injured person for intangible injuries such as pain and emotional suffering. 

Thus, It is appears Plaintiff is seeking special damages in the amount of $25,000 per defendant and general damages in the 

same amount.

Case 1:13-cv-00724-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/01/15 Page 4 of 14
5

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

G. POINTS OF LAW

1. The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment prohibits government officials from conducting warrantless searches of 

areas in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 

351 (1967). However, a warrant is not required where the person voluntarily consents to the search by 

the officers. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973). Consent must be “freely and 

voluntarily given.” Id. at 222. 

Consent is validly given where “that there was no duress or coercion, express or implied” and 

that the consent was “‘unequivocal and specific’ and ‘freely and intelligently given.’” United States v. 

Shaibu, 920 F.2d 1423, 1426 (9th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Page, 302 F.2d 81, 83-84 (9th 

Cir.1962) (footnotes omitted)). Because the sanctity of the home is at the “very core” of the Fourth 

Amendment, courts should be reluctant to infer consent in the context of home searches. Shaibu, at

1426. “[M]ere acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority is not sufficient” to demonstrate valid 

consent. Id.

To determine whether the consent was free and voluntary, “[t]he proper inquiry ‘is whether a 

reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the 

encounter.” United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 202 (2002) quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 

429, 436 (1991). To evaluate whether the consent was voluntary, the trier of fact must consider the 

totality of the circumstances. Schneckloth, 412 U.S.at 219.

In addition, where government officials have probable cause to believe the parolee—with search 

terms—resides at the home to be searched, the Constitution is not offended by a warrantless search. 

Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2005) overruled on other grounds in United States v. 

King, 687 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2012). However, this does not authorize a wholesale search of the 

parolee’s home. People v. Woods, 21 Cal.4th 668, 681 (1999) (citing United States v. Matlock, 415 U 

.S. 164 n. 7 (1974)). Instead, the searching officers must have a warrant or “reasonable suspicion” to 

conclude that the parolee has either sole or joint control over the areas in the home to be searched.

United States v. Bolivar, 670 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2012) (citing United States v. Davis, 932 F.2d 

752, 758 (9th Cir.1991)).

Case 1:13-cv-00724-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/01/15 Page 5 of 14
6

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. Punitive Damages

Plaintiff has the burden of proving what, if any, punitive damages should be awarded by a 

preponderance of the evidence. NINTH CIRCUIT MODEL CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS § 5.5 

(2009). The jury must find that the defendant’s conduct is “motivated by evil motive or intent, or . . . 

involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” Smith v. Wade, 461 

U.S. 30, 56 (1986); see also Larez v. Holcomb, 16 F.3d 1513, 1518 (9th Cir. 1994).

H. ABANDONED ISSUES

None

I. WITNESSES

The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including rebuttal and 

impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY 

BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT 

THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(10).

Plaintiffs’ Witness List:

1. Steven Whitfield

2. Eddie Wells

3. Shirley Wells

4. Mr. Martinez3

Defendant’s Witness List:

1. John Hernandez

2. Lisa Aceves

3. Donnette Aguilera

///

 

3 Mr. Martinez is a current or retired employee of the Division of Parole. Mr. Delgado will determine Mr. Martinez’s first 

name and his employment status with the Division of Parole as soon as possible and communicate this information to Mr. 

Whitfield. If he decides to pursue subpoenaing Mr. Martinez, Mr. Whitfield can obtain a subpoena on the Court’s website at 

http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/forms/civil/. He must submit the subpoena to the Clerk if the Court (at 

the Court’s Fresno location) for signature prior to having it served.

Case 1:13-cv-00724-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/01/15 Page 6 of 14
7

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

J. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES

The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that the parties expect to offer at trial.

NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE ADMITTED UNLESS 

THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE 

MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(11).

Plaintiff’s Exhibits

1. Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Aguilera

2. Defendant Aguilera’s Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories

3. Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions to Defendant Aguilera

4. Defendant Aguilera’s Responses to Request for Admissions

5. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to Defendant Aceves

6. Defendant Aceves’ Responses to interrogatories

7. Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Hernandez

8. Defendant Hernandez’s Responses to Interrogatories

9. Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents as to all Defendants and their respective 

responses 

10. Plaintiff Request for Admissions as to Defendant Aceves

11. Defendant Aceves Response to Request for Admissions

12. Copies. of the Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form 902 file before before the incident of May 

10, 2013

13. Copies of State Parole Manual and Regulations regarding parole searches.

14. Copies of photos of the interior of the residence.

Defendants’ Exhibits

1. Memorandum from R. Ambroselli to Regional Parole Administrators, entitled “Effective

Supervision Strategies,” dated September 30, 2009.

2. Excerpts from Plaintiff’s original complaint (ECF No. 1).

3. Excerpts from Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 8.)

4. Defendant Aguilera’s Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One.

Case 1:13-cv-00724-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/01/15 Page 7 of 14
8

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

5. Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant Aguilera’s Interrogatories, Set One.

6. Defendant Aguilera’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.

7. Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant Aguilera’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.

8. Defendant Aceves’s Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One.

9. Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant Aceves’s Interrogatories, Set One.

10. Defendant Aceves’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.

11. Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant Aceves’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.

Any of the exhibits identified herein that have not been provided to the opponent, SHALL be 

provided via e-mail or fax on or before October 9, 2015.

4

 On or before October 16, 2015, counsel 

SHALL meet and confer to discuss any disputes related to the above listed exhibits and to pre-mark 

and examining each other’s exhibits. 

1. At the exhibit conference, counsel will determine whether there are objections to the 

admission of each of the exhibits and will prepare separate indexes; one listing joint exhibits, one listing 

Plaintiff’s exhibits and one listing Defendant’s exhibits. In advance of the conference, counsel must 

have a complete set of their proposed exhibits in order to be able to fully discuss whether evidentiary 

objections exist. Thus, any exhibit not previously provided in discovery SHALL be provided at least 

five court days in advance of the exhibit conference.

2. At the conference, counsel shall identify any duplicate exhibits, i.e., any document which 

both sides desire to introduce into evidence. These exhibits SHALL be marked as a joint exhibit and 

numbered as directed above. Joint exhibits SHALL be admitted into without further foundation.

All Joint exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers preceded by the designation “JT” (e.g. JT/1,

JT/2, etc.). Plaintiff’s exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 1 by the designation PX 

(e.g. PX1, PX2, etc.). Defendant’s exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 501 

preceded by the designation DX (e.g. DX501, DX502, etc.). The Parties SHALL number each page of 

any exhibit exceeding one page in length (e.g. PX1-1, PX1-2, PX1-3, etc.).

If originals of exhibits are unavailable, the parties may substitute legible copies. If any document 

 

4 Mr. Delgado indicated that he does not have the parole regulations upon which Mr. Whitfield will rely or the copies of the 

photos. Thus, Mr. Whitfield will need to provide copies of these by the deadline set forth here.

Case 1:13-cv-00724-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/01/15 Page 8 of 14
9

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

is offered which is not fully legible, the Court may exclude it from evidence. 

Each joint exhibit binder shall contain an index which is placed in the binder before the exhibits. 

The index shall consist of a column for the exhibit number, one for a description of the exhibit and one 

column entitled “Admitted in Evidence” (as shown in the example below).

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

ADMITTED 

EXHIBIT# DESCRIPTION IN EVIDENCE

3. As to any exhibit which is not a joint exhibit but to which there is no objection to its 

introduction, the exhibit will likewise be appropriately marked, i.e., as PX1, or as DX501 and will be 

indexed as such on the index of the offering party. Such exhibits will be admitted upon introduction 

and motion of the party, without further foundation.

4. Each exhibit binder shall contain an index which is placed in the binder before the 

exhibits. Each index shall consist of the exhibit number, the description of the exhibit and the three 

columns as shown in the example below. 

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

ADMITTED OBJECTION OTHER

EXHIBIT# DESCRIPTION IN EVIDENCE FOUNDATION OBJECTION 

5. On the index, as to exhibits to which the only objection is a lack of foundation, counsel 

will place a mark under the column heading entitled “Admissible but for Foundation.” 

6. On the index, as to exhibits to which there are objections to admissibility that are not 

based solely on a lack of foundation, counsel will place a mark under the column heading entitled 

“Other Objections.”

After the exhibit conference, Plaintiff and counsel for the defendants SHALL develop four 

complete, legible sets of exhibits. The parties SHALL deliver three sets of their exhibit binders to the 

Courtroom Clerk and provide one set to their opponent, no later than 4:00 p.m., on November 30, 2015. 

Counsel SHALL determine which of them will also provide three sets of the joint exhibits to the 

Courtroom Clerk.

7. The Parties SHALL number each page of any exhibit exceeding one page in length.

Case 1:13-cv-00724-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/01/15 Page 9 of 14
10

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

K. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS

The following is a list of discovery documents – portions of depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and responses to requests for admissions – that the parties expect to offer at trial. 

NO DISCOVERY DOCUMENT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE 

ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER 

SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local 

Rule 281(b)(12).

Plaintiff anticipates offering the following discovery documents at trial:

1. Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Aguilera

2. Defendant Aguilera’s Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories

3. Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions to Defendant Aguilera

4. Defendant Aguilera’s Responses to Request for Admissions

5. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to Defendant Aceves

6. Defendant Aceves’ Responses to interrogatories

7. Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Hernandez

8. Defendant Hernandez’s Responses to Interrogatories

9. Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents as to all Defendants and their respective 

responses 

10. Plaintiff Request for Admissions as to Defendant Aceves

11. Defendant Aceves Response to Request for Admissions

Defendant anticipates offering the following discovery documents at trial:

1. Defendant Aguilera’s Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One.

2. Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant Aguilera’s Interrogatories, Set One.

3. Defendant Aguilera’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.

4. Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant Aguilera’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.

5. Defendant Aceves’s Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One.

6. Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant Aceves’s Interrogatories, Set One.

7. Defendant Aceves’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.

Case 1:13-cv-00724-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/01/15 Page 10 of 14
11

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

8. Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant Aceves’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.

L. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

No further discovery is sought by either party.

M. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Any party may file motions in limine. The purpose of a motion in limine is to establish in 

advance of the trial that certain evidence should not be offered at trial. “Although the Federal Rules of 

Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district 

court’s inherent authority to manage the course of trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2

(1984); Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F. 3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). The Court 

will grant a motion in limine, and thereby bar use of the evidence in question, only if the moving party 

establishes that the evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. Id. 

In advance of filing any motion in limine, counsel SHALL meet and confer to determine 

whether they can resolve any disputes and avoid filing motions in limine. Along with their 

motions in limine, the parties SHALL file a certification demonstrating counsel have in good faith 

met and conferred and attempted to resolve the dispute. Failure to provide the certification may 

result in the Court refusing to entertain the motion.

Any motions in limine must be filed with the Court by October 30, 2015. The motion must 

clearly identify the nature of the evidence that the moving party seeks to prohibit the other side from 

offering at trial. Any opposition to the motion must be served on the other party, and filed with the Court 

by November 13, 2015. The Court sets a hearing on the motions in limine on November 23, 2015, at 

10:00 a.m. Appearances via Courtcall are authorized.

The parties are reminded they may still object to the introduction of evidence during trial.

N. STIPULATIONS

The parties stipulate that copies may be used in place of originals.

O. AMENDMENTS/ DISMISSALS

None at this time.

P. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

The parties have discussed settlement in the past but the Defendants are not currently amenable 

Case 1:13-cv-00724-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/01/15 Page 11 of 14
12

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

to settlement.

Q. AGREED STATEMENT

None

R. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES

None.

S. APPOINTMENT OF IMPARTIAL EXPERTS

None requested.

T. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

If successful at trial, Plaintiff will be seeking attorney fees pursuant to 29 USC §§ 626 and 216 

as well as Cal. Gov’t Code § 12965(b). (Doc. 52 at 21.)

U. TRIAL DATE/ ESTIMATED LENGTH OF TRIAL

Jury trial is set for December 7, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston at 

the United States Courthouse, 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. Trial is expected to last no longer 

than 2 days.

V. TRIAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSIONS

1. Joint statement of the case

The parties submitted a joint statement of the case. However, the statement contains 

information not needed in the statement and was unclear. Thus, the Court has amended the statement 

to read:

This case arises from a search that occurred on May 10, 2013, at the Bakersfield home 

where Mr. Whitfield rented a room. Also living in the home was the homeowner, 

Shirley Wells, and her brother, Eddie Wells. Eddie Wells was on parole at the time. 

On the day of the search, Parole Agents Aguilera and Aceves went to the home to 

conduct a random search of Eddie Wells’ living area. Mr. Whitfield was present when 

Parole Agents Aguilera and Aceves arrived. As part of the search, Aguilera and Aceves 

asked Mr. Whitfield if they could look inside his bedroom. 

According to Mr. Whitfield, Parole Agent Aguilera demanded entry into his bedroom, 

and he only agreed out of fear that he could be arrested if he objected. According to 

Parole Agents Aguilera and Aceves, when they asked to look inside the bedroom, Mr. 

Whitfield agreed and let them do it without any objection or delay. The parties dispute 

how long the two agents were in Mr. Whitfield’s bedroom, and whether they were there 

with his consent.

Any objections to this joint statement may be made, as set forth below, to the pretrial order within 10 

Case 1:13-cv-00724-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/01/15 Page 12 of 14
13

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

days.

2. Trial Briefs

The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file trial briefs. If any party 

wishes to file a trial brief, they must do so in accordance with Local Rule 285 and be filed on or before 

November 30, 2015.

2. Jury Voir Dire

The parties are required to file their proposed voir dire questions, in accordance with Local Rule 

162.1, on or before November 30, 2015.

3. Jury Instructions & Verdict Form

The parties shall serve, via e-mail or fax, their proposed jury instructions in accordance with 

Local Rule 163 and their proposed verdict form on one another no later than November 6, 2015. The 

parties shall conduct a conference to address their proposed jury instructions and verdict form no later 

than November 20, 2015. At the conference, the parties SHALL attempt to reach agreement on jury 

instructions and verdict form for use at trial. The parties shall file all agreed-upon jury instructions and 

verdict form no later than November 30, 2015, and identify such as the agreed-upon jury instructions 

and verdict forms. At the same time, the parties SHALL lodge via e-mail a copy of the joint jury 

instructions and joint verdict form (in Word format) to JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

If and only if, the parties after genuine, reasonable and good faith effort cannot agree upon 

certain specific jury instructions and verdict form, the parties shall file their respective proposed 

(disputed) jury instructions and proposed (disputed) verdict form no later than November 30, 2015, and 

identify such as the disputed jury instructions and verdict forms. At the same time, the parties SHALL

lodge via e-mail, a copy of his/their own (disputed) jury instructions and proposed (disputed) verdict 

form (in Word format) to JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

In selecting proposed instructions, the parties shall use Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury 

Instructions or California’s CACI instructions to the extent possible. All jury instructions and verdict 

forms shall indicate the party submitting the instruction or verdict form (i.e., joint, plaintiff’s, 

defendant’s, etc.), the number of the proposed instruction in sequence, a brief title for the instruction 

describing the subject matter, the complete text of the instruction, and the legal authority supporting 

Case 1:13-cv-00724-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/01/15 Page 13 of 14
14

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

the instruction. Each instruction SHALL be numbered. 

W. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER

Any party may, within 10 days after the date of service of this order, file and serve written 

objections to any of the provisions set forth in this order. Such objections shall clearly specify the 

requested modifications, corrections, additions or deletions.

X. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

None.

Y. COMPLIANCE

Strict compliance with this order and its requirements is mandatory. All parties and their 

counsel are subject to sanctions, including dismissal or entry of default, for failure to fully comply with 

this order and its requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00724-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/01/15 Page 14 of 14