Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00465/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00465-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENYA DARRICK CALDWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SELMA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00465-SAB

ORDER CLARIFYING CLAIMS AND 

REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND 

Ever Jean Kelley filed this action as conservator for Plaintiff Kenya Darrick Caldwell on 

March 28, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) On April 21, 2013, a first amended complaint was filed alleging 

unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; denial 

of due process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; excessive force in violation 

of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, denial of equal protection in violation of the 

Fourteenth Amendment, right to be free from interference with Plaintiff’s zone of privacy in 

violation of the Fourth and Ninth Amendments; and the right to free from malicious prosecution. 

(ECF No. 7.) This action arises out of an incident in which Plaintiff was shot while he was 

physically attacking Officer Burgamy. 

On July 25, 2014, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment 

claims. (ECF No. 24-29.) On August 29, 2014, this court entered partial summary judgment for 

Defendants on the Fourth Amendment claims raised in the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 

Case 1:13-cv-00465-SAB Document 92 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 3
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

48, as amended September 3, 2014.) 

On January 26, 2015, after the Court granted Defendants’ motion to file a second motion 

for summary judgment, Defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment. In their 

second motion for summary judgment, Defendants erroneously state that pursuant to the Court’s 

September 3, 2014 order the only triable claims remaining are the Equal Protection and Due 

Process claims. The Court has never found that only the equal protection and due process claims 

remain in this action. Specifically, when Defendants requested the Court amend the September 

3, 2014 order to include dismissal of Plaintiff’s Ninth Amendment claim, the Court denied the 

request stating that Defendants did not move for summary judgment on the Ninth Amendment 

claims. Similarly, Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim was not raised in the prior motion to 

dismiss and the claim was not addressed in the September 3, 2014 order as no facts or argument

relevant to the claim were raised in the prior motion.

Based upon review of Plaintiff’s complaint and the prior order granting partial summary 

judgment, the Court finds that the claims remaining in this action are against Defendant 

Burgamy for violation of Plaintiff’s right to due process of law and equal protection in violation 

of the Fourteenth Amendment and interference with the zone of privacy in violation of the Ninth 

Amendment; and against Defendants City of Selma and Whiteside for policies and procedures in 

violation of due process and equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and 

the right to be free from malicious prosecution. 

Accordingly, the Court shall require Defendants to either inform the Court of why these 

claims are not remaining in this action or if they did not move for summary judgment because 

they intend to proceed to trial on the claims. In the alternative, Defendants may file a 

supplement to their motion for summary judgment to address the Ninth Amendment and 

malicious prosecution claims.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants shall file a response to this order as set forth herein on or before 

March 31, 2015; and

2. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment and Defendants’ 

Case 1:13-cv-00465-SAB Document 92 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 3
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

response to this order shall be filed on or before April 6, 2015; 

3. Defendants’ reply, if any, shall be filed on or before April 10, 2015; and

4. The April 15, 2015 hearing shall remain on calendar unless the Court issues an 

order vacating the hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00465-SAB Document 92 Filed 03/26/15 Page 3 of 3