Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00424/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00424-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT RUSHING, )

) CV S-04-424 GEB GGH

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

) ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY; SACRAMENTO )

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT. SHERIFF LOU ) 

BLANAS; and SHERIFF’S DEPUTY T. )

KOONTZ, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Section IV of the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement does

not clearly state what claims exist against each Defendant. 

Specifically, “Defendants” are referenced on page 2, line 28, and

page 3, lines 1-2, but the basis for claims against any Defendant

other than Defendant Koontz is unclear. Plaintiff’s second claim

is also confusing since it is unclear where Plaintiff was

physically located when he was subjected to the alleged excessive

force, whether Plaintiff has a viable Eighth Amendment claim, and

on what basis the claim is asserted against each Defendant. 

Case 2:04-cv-00424-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff’s punitive damage claim is also confusing since Plaintiff

references all “Defendants” in the beginning of the sentence and

just “Defendant” in the end. Plaintiff’s fifth claim should also

be clarified.

To provide the parties with time to provide the requested

clarifications, the final pretrial conference is rescheduled for

hearing on August 15, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. The parties’

clarification of Section IV of their Joint Pretrial Statement shall

be filed no later than August 8, 2005. It behooves the parties to

clearly state all issues being litigated so that only viable claims

and defenses are preserved for trial and surprises at trial are

avoided. Obviously, this is expected under the rationale of

Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and would assist

the Court in understanding which issues are litigated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00424-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 07/20/05 Page 2 of 2