Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00559/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00559-7/pdf.json

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

---

{01433781.DOC} 1 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 

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

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

John R. Whitefleet, SBN 213301 

Taylor W. Rhoan, SBN 294941 

350 University Avenue, Suite 200 

Sacramento, California 95825 

TEL: 916.929.1481 

FAX: 916.927.3706 

Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT JONES, JOSEPH MILLICAN, 

ZACHARY ROSE and DUNCAN BROWN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT I. REESE, JR., 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; Sacramento 

County Sheriff’s Department Deputy

DUNCAN BROWN (Badge #1220);

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

Deputy ZACHARY ROSE (Badge #832);

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

Sergeant JOSEPH MILLICAN (Badge #246);

and Sacramento County Sheriff SCOTT 

JONES; DOES I through XV, inclusive, 

 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 2:13-cv-00559-JAM-DAD 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

 / 

The Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication filed by 

Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT JONES, JOSEPH MILLICAN and ZACHARY 

ROSE (“Defendants”) came on regularly for hearing on July 1, 2015, in the above-referenced court. 

John R. Whitefleet and Taylor W. Rhoan appeared as counsel for Defendants and Stewart Katz 

appeared as counsel for Plaintiff. Having considered the Motion and accompanying papers, the 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 69 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 3
{01433781.DOC} 2 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 

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

evidence, as well as the oral argument made at the time of the hearing, in accordance with the reasoning 

stated on record at the hearing on July 1, 2015, the Court hereby finds as follows: 

1. Plaintiff has abandoned all claims against Defendants SCOTT JONES and JOSEPH 

MILLICAN. 

2. With respect to Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action under California Civil Code § 52.1(b) 

(Bane act), Plaintiff clarified at the hearing that he is not pursuing any separate and independent state 

causes of action under the California constitution, Article I §§ 1, 7, or 13. 

3. Plaintiff’s claims are not barred by the conviction under California Penal Code section 

417(a), as the Court finds prevailing in this case would not necessarily imply the conviction was invalid 

under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Yount v. City of Sacramento, 43 Cal.4th 885 

(2008). See Estate of Srabian v. County of Fresno, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168218 (E.D. Cal. 2012). 

4. Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the round fired by Defendant ZACHARY ROSE 

struck Plaintiff, which precludes summarily adjudicating the claims against ROSE. Triable issues of fact 

also exist as to how the incident transpired, which preclude reaching the issue of qualified immunity as 

to both Defendants ROSE and BROWN. 

5. There is no triable issue of material fact as to Plaintiff’s municipal liability claims (the 

Third, Fourth and Fifth causes of action). While Plaintiff submits statistical evidence that there were 24 

officer-involved shootings from 2007-2011, the Court finds absent additional information as to the 

circumstances of those shootings, or evidence that some adjudicatory body found a constitutional 

violation, or that the Office of the District Attorney found some unlawful conduct, or that the County’s 

Internal Affairs found some unlawful conduct and reported it but was ignored, these shootings by 

themselves are insufficient to support a finding of municipal liability under a Monell theory. 

Accordingly, judgment as a matter of law on these claims is appropriate. 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 

1. All claims against SCOTT JONES and JOSEPH MILLICAN are dismissed with 

prejudice. SCOTT JONES and JOSEPH MILLICAN are hereby terminated as parties. 

/// 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 69 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 3
{01433781.DOC} 3 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 

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. Defendants move to dismiss any separate and independent state causes of action under 

the California Constitution, Article I §§ 1, 7, or 13. Plaintiff contends that he never asserted any such 

causes of action, so there is nothing to dismiss. He contends that his Second Cause of Action in the 

operative complaint refers to California Civil Code § 52.1(b) (Bane Act). In any event, to the extent that 

the Complaint raised any such causes of action, any separate or independent claims asserted under 

California Constitution, Article I §§ 1, 7, or 13 are hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

3. Defendant ROSE’s Motion for Summary Adjudication with respect to the First Claim for 

Unreasonable Seizure/Excessive Force, is DENIED because the court finds that there are triable issues 

of fact. Likewise, Defendant ROSE’s Motion for Summary Adjudication with respect to the Second 

Cause of Action under California Civil Code § 52.1(b) (Bane Act) and the Sixth Cause of Action for 

Battery is DENIED because there are triable issues of fact. 

4. Defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO’s Motion for Summary Adjudication with 

respect to the municipal liability claims in the Third, Fourth and Fifth causes of action against 

Defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO is GRANTED. 

5. There are triable issues of fact which preclude the Court from determining qualified 

immunity at this stage of the proceeding. Accordingly, Defendant ZACHARY ROSE and BROWN’s 

Motion for Summary Adjudication seeking qualified immunity is DENIED. 

Dated: July 16, 2015 /s/ John A. Mendez_____________ 

Honorable John A. Mendez 

United States District Court Judge 

Approved as to Form and Content: 

By: /s/ Thomas Seabaugh (as authorized on July 13, 2015) 

 Stewart Katz, Esq. 

 Dale K. Galipo, Esq. 

 Thomas Seabaugh, Esq. 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 Robert I. Reese, Jr. 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 69 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 3