Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02745/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02745-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUNIOR WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DALY CITY POLICE OFFICERS 

C. AUSTRIA and M. PRICE,

Defendants. /

No. C 02-02745 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON MARCH 10, 2006 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). The

parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

tentatively DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike.

The parties shall have 25 minutes each to address the following questions:

Case 3:02-cv-02745-JSW Document 116 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1. On December 9, 2003, this Court issued an order denying Defendants’ motion

for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The facts uncovered

through discovery do not appear to change significantly the factual allegations in

Plaintiff’s amended complaint. On what basis should the Court reconsider its

denial of the defense of qualified immunity based on the facts now presented?

2. Defendants contend that Plaintiff attempts to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1981. (Motion at 6-7.) The amended complaint filed on July 19, 2004 does 

not contain such a claim. Does Plaintiff intend to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1981 or only a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

3. Defendants contend that there is no fact in the record to demonstrate that the

officers acted with racial animus. (Motion at 7.) Does the factual contention by

Plaintiff that he was called racially derogatory names during the course of his

arrest create a dispute of fact as to whether the officers acted with racial animus? 

(See Plaintiff’s Deposition at 23 (attached as Exhibit E to Opposition).) 

4. What evidence, if any, has Plaintiff amassed to indicate that the alleged use of

force by the individual officers is representative of a repeated course of conduct

by Daly City police officers tantamount to a custom or practice? On what

ground do Defendants contend that Plaintiff may not maintain a Monell cause of

action where the officers have been sued in their official capacities? (See, e.g.,

Monell v. New York Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978);

Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985).)

5. If the Court finds that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the

42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, on what basis do Defendants maintain that the

California Government Code affords them discretionary immunity for the

alleged use of unreasonable force in making an arrest? (See, e.g., Robinson v.

Solano County, 278 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002); Scruggs v. Haynes, 252

Cal. App. 2d 256, 265 (1967).)

6. Would any possible prejudice to Defendants of the late disclosure of Frank

Saunders be remedied by a brief and limited extension of time for the sole

purpose of deposing Mr. Saunders? Have the documents relied upon by

Defendants’ experts been produced to Plaintiff?

7. Is there anything further the parties wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-02745-JSW Document 116 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 2