Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03383/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03383-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

JOANNE HOEPER, State Bar #114961 

Chief Trial Attorney 

BLAKE P. LOEBS, State Bar #145790

ELIZABETH DEELEY, State Bar #230798 

Deputy City Attorneys 

1390 Market Street, 6th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102-5408 

Telephone: (415) 554-3868 

Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 

Attorneys for Defendants 

BEN ROSENFELD, State Bar # 203845

DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, State Bar #112910

Law Office of Dennis Cunningham 

115 1⁄2 Bartlett Street 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

Tel: (415) 285-8091 

Fax: (415) 285-8092 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSICA BATES, et al., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C-05-3383-SI 

STIPULATION REGARDING CATEGORIES 

OF CONDUCT, VEL NON, BY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT DEFENDANTS; 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND DISMISSAL 

OF PLAINTIFF DANIELA ZION WITH 

PREJUDICE 

1

STIPULATION 

Bates, et al. v. CCSF, et al., No. C-05-3383-SI

1. For the purpose of narrowing the factual questions material to the Court’s 

consideration of motions for summary judgment/summary adjudication based on qualified 

immunity and/or other grounds, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, stipulate and 

agree as follows: 

Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 30 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 1 of 4
 Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 31 Filed 08/11/06 Page 1 of 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

 

2. Discovery and investigation are continuing. The parties are not bound forever by the 

terms of this stipulation, or the facts recited therein. The parties are free to argue or elicit 

information contrary to the terms and facts recited in this stipulation at trial. This stipulation 

may not be used to impeach any witness at trial. However, the parties agree to be bound by the 

terms and facts recited in this stipulation for all purposes related to making and opposing 

summary judgment/summary adjudication motions, whether based on qualified immunity or 

other grounds. 

3. Plaintiffs were arrested on June 8, 2004 in connection with the Biotech Protest. After 

being transported to San Francisco County Jail No. 9 (“CJ9”), they were initially held in outside 

holding pens in the sally port. While in the holding pens in the sally port, those individuals who 

had been arrested were asked to identify themselves so that they could be cited and released. 

Plaintiffs, along with other individuals, declined to identify themselves. Those who refused to 

identify themselves were then taken into two holding cells inside of CJ9, one for the men and 

one for the women. 

4. Defendants1 at various times prior to plaintiffs’ removal from the holding cells, asked 

plaintiffs to identify themselves so that they could be cited and released, and plaintiffs declined 

to do so. Plaintiffs remained in the holding cells, continuing to decline to identify themselves for 

many hours. After giving plaintiffs numerous opportunities to identify themselves, which 

plaintiffs declined to do, Defendants decided to remove plaintiffs from the holding cells so that 

they could be booked and housed in the jail facilities. As the process of removing plaintiffs from 

their holding cells began, defendants asked certain plaintiffs, by describing their clothing, to get 

up and go with defendants. At first, no plaintiff agreed. Defendants then began extracting the 

plaintiffs by force. As the extraction process continued, some plaintiffs got up and voluntarily 

went with defendants, while other plaintiffs continued to refuse to leave the holding cells. 

2

STIPULATION 

Bates, et al. v. CCSF, et al., No. C-05-3383-SI

1

 The term “defendants” as used in this stipulation is intended to refer to the defendants in 

a generic way for ease of reference and is not a stipulation that each individual defendant 

engaged in the activities attributed to “defendants.” 

Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 30 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 2 of 4
 Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 31 Filed 08/11/06 Page 2 of 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

5. Those plaintiffs who refused to leave the holding cells and who were extracted by 

force attempted to avoid extraction by holding onto each other and /or objects in the holding 

cells. After being removed from the holding cells, many plaintiffs did not cooperate with various 

stages of the booking process, such as having their fingerprints taken. Several Sheriff’s Deputies 

used pain compliance techniques to gain their cooperation. Some time after plaintiffs went 

through the booking process they were placed in housing units in County Jail No. 8. 

6. After they were arraigned, and as a condition of their release, plaintiffs identified 

themselves and were thereafter released. 

7. As for defendants (1) Deputy Itza Camberos; (2) Deputy Michael Chiu; (3) Deputy 

Catherine Chui-Moore; (4) Deputy David Dear; (5) Deputy Richard Drocco; (6) Deputy Robert 

Gallot; (7) Deputy Dennis Hughes; (8) Deputy Albert Jang; (9) Deputy Leonard Lamug; 

(10) Deputy John Lawsha; (11) Deputy Vincent Quock; (12) Deputy Brian Rice; (13) Deputy 

Robert Rood; (14) Deputy Eliseo Ruiz; (15) Deputy Christopher Sheriff; and (16) Deputy James 

Wilson: plaintiffs claim that they were members of the extraction teams who carried out orders 

by their superiors to physically separate and remove plaintiffs from their holding cells to the 

booking area, and in some cases, assist with booking. Plaintiffs do not have any evidence to 

show that these defendants planned any operations, developed any policy with respect to 

plaintiffs, or exercised any supervisory authority during the events in question. 

8. As for defendants (17) Chief Tom Arata and (18) Lt. Wayne Hess: plaintiffs claim 

that they acted at all relevant times as supervisors, and policy and decision-makers, with respect 

to planning and issuing orders for how to deal with plaintiffs. Plaintiffs do not have any 

evidence to show that any of these defendants ever physically touched any plaintiff, or directly 

used any force on any plaintiff. 

3

STIPULATION 

Bates, et al. v. CCSF, et al., No. C-05-3383-SI

9. As for defendants (19) Capt. Ellen Brin; (20) Capt. Kenneth Ferrigno; 

(21) Sgt. Matthew Freeman; and (22) Lt. Paul Miyamoto: plaintiffs claim both that they acted at 

all relevant times as supervisors, and policy and decision-makers, with respect to planning and 

issuing orders for how to deal with plaintiffs, and that they each used some amount of force 

directly on one or more plaintiffs during the extraction and/or booking processes. 

Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 30 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 3 of 4
 Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 31 Filed 08/11/06 Page 3 of 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

10. As for defendant (23) Sgt. Allan Wong: plaintiffs claim both that he acted at all 

relevant times as a booking supervisor, and that he used some amount of force directly on one or 

more plaintiffs during the extraction and/or booking processes. In addition, plaintiffs claim that 

defendant Wong participated in hanging up blankets around their cells prior to the 

commencement of the extraction process. In addition, plaintiffs claim that he wrote a series of 

rules violations against various plaintiffs alleging that they refused to dress in to jail clothes. 

11. As for defendants (24) Deputy Irma Aceves; (25) Deputy Gerald Barbieri; 

(26) Deputy El Ceg Gonzales; (27) Lt. Allen Kennedy; (28) Sgt. Barbara Kester; (29) Deputy 

John Ramirez; (30) Deputy Matthew Rivette; (31) Sr. Deputy Joale Robinson; (32) Deputy 

Patrick Tuohy; and (33) Deputy Alvin Ung: the parties agree that plaintiffs will dismiss these 

defendants without prejudice. 

12. The parties agree that plaintiffs will request leave to dismiss Daniela Zion with 

prejudice, and that defendants will not oppose such dismissal. 

 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

 Dated: August 9, 2006 

DENNIS CUNNINGHAM 

BEN ROSENFELD 

By: /s/ - Ben Rosenfeld

BEN ROSENFELD 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 Dated: August 9, 2006 

DENNIS J. HERRERA 

City Attorney 

JOANNE HOEPER 

Chief Trial Deputy 

BLAKE P. LOEBS 

ELIZABETH DEELEY 

Deputy City Attorneys 

By: /s/ - Blake P. Loebs

BLAKE P. LOEBS 

4

STIPULATION 

Bates, et al. v. CCSF, et al., No. C-05-3383-SI

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 30 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 4 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 31 Filed 08/11/06 Page 4 of 4