Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00251/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00251-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ED BODLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF TULARE, CALIFORNIA,

BILL WITTMAN, SHERIFF, COUNTY OF

TULARE, and D. LINARES, an

individual,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-0251 OWW DLB

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 3/14/08

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 3/31/08

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 4/14/08

Settlement Conference Date:

4/10/08 10:00 Ctrm. 9

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 6/30/08 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 8/5/08 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-4 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

September 14, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Law Office of William A. Romaine by William A. Romaine,

Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Kathleen Bales-Lange, Esq., appeared on behalf of

Defendants. 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 09/19/07 Page 1 of 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

2

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. This is a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged

violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights by Deputy Sheriff D.

Linares for allegedly seizing the person of Plaintiff without a

warrant or sufficient cause to believe that Plaintiff had

committed a crime and thereby depriving Plaintiff of his right to

be free in his person from seizure without warrant issued on

probable cause, which resulted in Plaintiff suffering emotional

and physical distress. Plaintiff prays for monetary general and

punitive damages.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. No party contemplates amendments to the pleadings.

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Defendant Linares was an on-duty Tulare County

Deputy Sheriff at all times mentioned in the Complaint.

2. On April 8, 2006, Plaintiff telephoned 911

requesting assistance. During that call, he repeatedly stated

that his father was dead and that he needed Deputies to take his

father away to learn to take care of the property. He also

claimed to own the government, that he was king, and that the

government was bankrupt.

3. Within minutes of the Plaintiffs 911 call,

Plaintiff’s father, Thomas Bodley, telephoned 911 requesting

assistance. He told the dispatcher that his son was threatening

to kill him with a shotgun, and that his son was at the same

location. He reported that his son was bipolar, had not taken

Case 1:07-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 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

3

his medications for a week, had been awake for three days and

three nights. He also told the dispatcher that he had taken his

son to mental health the day before, but that his son was

continuing to refuse to take his medication. He reported that

his son was a professional gambler who had been on medications

for 18-20 years.

4. When questioned about whether there were guns in

the house, Plaintiff’s father stated “No. I got some in this

closet but he doesn’t know how to use them.”

5. When asked “Does your son have access to a

shotgun?” Plaintiff’s father responded that there were guns in

the residence in the room where the caller was located. He

further responded “I don’t think so,” and that “We don’t know

where the shells are.” 

6. Upon arrival at the residence, Plaintiff stated to

Deputy Linares “I want you to take my dad to jail and just beat

the living shit out of him ‘til he’s dead. He is a no good son

of a bitch and doesn’t pick cotton for ninety cents a fucking

hour. I’m gonna kill him with a shot gun as soon as you guys

leave, cause I’m king of this country and you guys are broke.”

7. Velma Bodley reported to Deputy Linares that prior

to his arrival, Plaintiff yelled at his father, saying: “I’m

going to fucking kill you, just wait I’m gonna shoot you with a

shot gun. That will teach you, and you will burn in hell

forever.”

8. Deputy Linares arrested Plaintiff without a

warrant for making terrorist threats.

9. While being taken to the Porterville substation

Case 1:07-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 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

4

for booking, Plaintiff repeatedly stated “I should have just

gotten the shot gun out of the closet and shot him without any

warning.”

10. Plaintiff was charged with a felony, specifically

violation of Penal Code § 422, which provides:

Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime

which will result in death or great bodily injury to

another person, with the specific intent that the

statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an

electronic communications device, is to be taken as a

threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying

it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances

in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional,

immediate, and specific as to convey to the person

threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate

prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes

that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his

or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s

safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county

jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the

state prison.

11. On April 11, 2006, the Tulare County Superior

Court ordered that Plaintiff be held with bail set at $50,000.

12. On April 14, 2006, the Tulare County Superior

Court ordered that Plaintiff be held with bail set at $25,000. 

13. On April 21, 2006, upon motion of the District

Attorney, the charge was amended under Penal Code § 17b to be a

misdemeanor, and Plaintiff was convicted upon a plea of nolo

contendre. 

14. Plaintiff’s conviction has not been vacated or

appealed or otherwise determined to be invalid. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. Defendants contend, and Plaintiff denies, that the

principles set out in Heck v. Humphrey (1994) 512 U.S. 477

barring a civil cause of action where resolution in Plaintiff’s

Case 1:07-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 09/19/07 Page 4 of 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

5

favor would imply the invalidity of a criminal conviction apply

to a conviction upon a plea of nolo contendre in California. 

2. Defendants contend, and Plaintiff denies, that a

finding in Plaintiff’s favor on his cause of action alleging a

lack of probable cause to arrest would imply that his criminal

conviction in the underlying action is invalid in violation of

the principles set out in Heck v. Humphrey (1994) 512 U.S. 477.

3. Defendants contend, and Plaintiff denies, that the

Plaintiff’s complaint does not state facts sufficient to state a

cause of action, and that they are entitled to judgment.

4. Defendants contend, and Plaintiff denies, that

Defendant Linares is protected by qualified immunity for his

actions related to the arrest and detention of Plaintiff.

5. Defendants contend, and Plaintiff denies, that

they are protected by unqualified immunity as to the arrest and

detention of Plaintiff.

6. Defendants contend, and Plaintiff denies, that

Plaintiff is barred by the principles of collateral estoppel and

res judicata from bringing this action in regards to his arrest

and detention.

7. Defendants contend, and Plaintiff denies, that

clearly established law bars Plaintiff’s action in its entirety,

entitling Defendants to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. The substantive law of the United States and

Case 1:07-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 09/19/07 Page 5 of 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

6

procedural law governs this action. 

B. Contested. 

1. All remaining legal issues are contested.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties shall make their initial disclosures

pursuant to Rule 26(f) on or before November 1, 2007. 

2. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before March 14, 2008.

3. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before January 14, 2008. Any

supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before

February 14, 2008. The parties will comply with the provisions

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding their

expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding, the

written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F. R.

Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in

Case 1:07-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 09/19/07 Page 6 of 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

7

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

4. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before March 31, 2008, and

heard on May 2, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Dennis

L. Beck in Courtroom 9. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than April 14, 2008, and will be heard on May 19,

2008, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In scheduling

such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. June 30, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor,

before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District

Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreCase 1:07-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 09/19/07 Page 7 of 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

Trial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. August 5, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 4 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for April 10,

2008, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Dennis L.

Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

Case 1:07-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 09/19/07 Page 8 of 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

9

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

Case 1:07-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 09/19/07 Page 9 of 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

10

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

Case 1:07-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 09/19/07 Page 10 of 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

11

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 09/19/07 Page 11 of 11