Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02932/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02932-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

BRUCE HOPKINS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OFFICER A. BONVICINO, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-02932 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

DECEMBER 15, 2006:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities 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. Cf. N.D. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their

reliance on such authority. The parties shall not file written responses to the questions posed in

this notice.

The Court reserves issuing a tentative ruling on Defendant’s motion.

The parties each shall have twenty (20) minutes to address the following questions:

Case 3:05-cv-02932-JSW Document 28 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 3
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. In his Complaint, Hopkins sets forth seven bases on which he premises his

section 1983 claim. In response to Defendants’ motion, Hopkins addresses only

the Fourth Amendment violations, the excessive force claim, and the Monell

claim. 

a. Is Hopkins conceding that Defendants are entitled to judgment with

respect to the other alleged violations? 

b. If not, why should the Court not grant Defendants’ motion as unopposed

on those alleged violations?

2. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he prevailed on a motion to suppress in

state court, yet there is no evidence of this in response to the motion for

summary judgment. Did Plaintiff prevail on such a motion and is there a written

order with respect to the motion?

3. Does Plaintiff concede that Officers Bonvicino and Nguyen are not liable on his

excessive force claim? 

a. If not, is he relying on their failure to intercede as a basis for liability? 

b. If the answer to this question is yes, what facts support an inference that

Officers Bonvicino and Nguyen were aware of the fact that Officer

Buelow pointed his gun at Hopkins?

4. Is Hopkins asserting a separate section 1983 claim based on the allegation that

the Defendant Officers did not have probable cause to arrest him, separate and

apart from his claim that they lacked probable cause for purposes of the

warrantless entry? If so, for which offense: the violation of Vehicle Code §

20002(a) or the violation of Vehicle Code § 23152? 

5. With respect to the second prong of the qualified immunity test, Defendants rely

on People v. Thompson, 38 Cal. 4th 811 (2006) to argue that the law with respect

to whether exigent circumstances existed was not clearly established at the time

of Hopkins’ arrest. Given that the Ninth Circuit has held that this inquiry should

begin by reference to binding precedent, see Boyd v. Benton Co., 374 F.3d 773,

781 (9th Cir. 2004), are the Defendants relying on Thompson to argue that

Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent on this issue was not clearly

established? 

Case 3:05-cv-02932-JSW Document 28 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

6. In their reply brief, Defendants only address the position that their entry into

Hopkins home was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant

requirement.

a. Are Defendants abandoning their claim that the entry was justified by

probable cause and exigent circumstances?

b. If not, in light of the facts of this case, how do the Defendant Officers

reconcile these two bases for entry? Would Defendants agree that the

latter exception would apply only if the offense for which probable cause

existed was the DUI offense?

7. In their declarations, the Defendant Officers provide additional details regarding

what they learned from Ms. Talib about Plaintiff’s behavior on the day of his

arrest that are not included in their police reports. In light of the fact that the

Court must consider the facts, and reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light

most favorable to the Plaintiff, why should the Court not look solely to the police

reports to consider what the Defendant Officers knew at the time they entered

Plaintiff’s home?

8. Does the Court correctly understand that Hopkins claims the City is liable under

Monell, based on the fact that it allegedly did not adequately supervise Officer

Buelow with respect to his practice of filling out incident reports when a firearm

is pointed at a suspect? 

9. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02932-JSW Document 28 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 3