Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00809/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00809-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENYA KWAME MOSELEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF CERES; JAMES YANDELL,

individually and as a police

officer for the CITY OF CERES;

JOSHUA KLINGE, individually and

as a police officer for the CITY

OF CERES; ART DEWERK, the CITY

OF CERES Chief of Police; and

Does 1-25, inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:08-cv-0809 OWW GSA

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 11/30/09

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 12/15/09

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 12/30/09

Settlement Conference Date:

8/26/09 10:00 Ctrm. 10

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 3/8/10 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 4/20/10 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-7 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

September 17, 2008.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Law Offices of John L. Burris by Ben Nisenbaum, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. 

Ferguson, Praet & Sherman by Bruce D. Praet, Esq., appeared

on behalf of Defendants. 

///

Case 1:08-cv-00809-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 1 of 10
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

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

Plaintiff’s Contentions

1. Ceres Police Officers, Defendants James Yandell, and

Joshua Klinge, at approximately 11:30 p.m. on May 29, 2007,

stopped Plaintiff Kenya Moseley as he was driving on Central

Avenue in Ceres. While stopped, Moseley saw one of the officers

approach with a drawn firearm. Concerned for his immediate

safety, Moseley drove away, continuing until the patrol car

overtook him. As Moseley left his car he heard one of the

officers say the words “armed and dangerous” into his shoulder

microphone and thought he was about to be shot. Moseley ran

approximately eight feet to a cyclone fence which bordered the

freeway and began to climb the fence and was shot from behind,

being struck in the shoulder and lower back. Moseley turned and

raised his hands, weaponless, to surrender. The officer

continued to fire and hit Moseley in the arm and in the abdomen. 

Moseley passed out as he was placed in handcuffs, his arm broken

by one of the shots. He was then transported to a hospital and

admitted for emergency treatment.

2. Plaintiff contends the Officers exercised an

unwarranted and unlawful use of lethal force in taking him into

custody and that under the circumstances of the arrest, the

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff also

contends the City of Ceres failed to train, supervise and/or

retain the Defendant Officers. Plaintiff seeks monetary and

exemplary damages, medical and special damages, attorney’s fees

and costs. 

///

Case 1:08-cv-00809-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 2 of 10
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

Defendants’ Contentions

1. Defendants contend that Plaintiff led officers on a

high speed chase while throwing narcotics from his vehicle. As

Plaintiff ran from his vehicle and ignored Officers’ commands to

stop, Plaintiff reached for his waistband while jumping over a

fence. Believing that Plaintiff was reaching for a weapon,

Officer Yandell fired his weapon and took Plaintiff into custody. 

(Plaintiff was found to have more illegal narcotics in his pants

pocket and was later found guilty of felony evading and

possession of narcotics). Defendants contend that the use of

force was reasonable.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not anticipate amending the pleadings at

this time. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and

was a resident of the Eastern District of California, Fresno

Division, at the time of the events alleged in the complaint. 

2. Plaintiff was not armed at the time he was shot.

3. Plaintiff received wounds in the shoulder, back,

arm, and abdomen.

4. Officer Yandell was acting as field training

officer for Officer Klinge. 

5. Plaintiff drove away from the initial vehicle stop

causing Defendants to pursue him. 

6. Plaintiff left his car through the passenger door

Case 1:08-cv-00809-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 3 of 10
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

4

and ran toward a fence.

7. Plaintiff was provided medical care.

8. Each Officer was acting within the course and

scope of his employment at all times alleged in the complaint.

B. Contested Facts.

1. All remaining facts, including facts related to

qualified immunity, are in dispute. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42

U.S.C. §§ 1983 et seq. Jurisdiction is also invoked under 28

U.S.C. § 1367. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. Standards for the use of lethal force for

qualified immunity are not in dispute. 

4. The parties agree that as to the supplemental

claims, the substantive law of the State of California provides

the rule of decision. 

B. Contested. 

1. All remaining legal issues are contested. 

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

Case 1:08-cv-00809-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 4 of 10
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

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. Depositions: Plaintiff will take depositions of each

Defendant Officer, the Chief of Police and may take up to six

additional depositions. Defendants will take the deposition of

Plaintiff Moseley and additional depositions, as necessary. 

Should the court permit discovery on the Monell cause of action,

the parties will seek leave to amend this discovery plan.

2. Interrogatories and document requests: twenty-five per

side. The parties will stipulate to a protective order

permitting prompt production of investigative reports and

confidential documents disclosed in the initial disclosures.

3. Discovery will otherwise be limited as provided by the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil Local Rules for

the Eastern District of California.

4. The parties are ordered to complete all non-expert

discovery on or before August 31, 2009.

5. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before September 30, 2009. Any

rebuttal or supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or

before October 30, 2009. The parties will comply with the

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding

their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,

the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.

R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in

Case 1:08-cv-00809-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 5 of 10
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

6

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

6. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery,

including experts, on or before November 30, 2009.

7. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before December 15, 2009,

and heard on January 22, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate

Judge Gary S. Austin in Courtroom 10. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than December 30, 2009, and will be heard on

February 1, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W.

Wanger, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. 

In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. March 8, 2010, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor,

Case 1:08-cv-00809-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 6 of 10
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

7

before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District

Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Motions - Hard Copy.

1. The parties shall submit one (1) courtesy paper copy to

the Court of any motions filed that exceed ten pages and any

motions that have exhibits attached. Exhibits shall be marked

with protruding numbered or lettered tabs so that the Court can

easily identify such exhibits. 

XIII. Trial Date.

1. April 20, 2010, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 7 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIV. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for August 26,

2009, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10 before the Honorable Gary S.

Austin, United States Magistrate Judge. 

Case 1:08-cv-00809-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 7 of 10
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

8

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

Case 1:08-cv-00809-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 8 of 10
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

9

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XVI. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVII. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

///

Case 1:08-cv-00809-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 9 of 10
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

XVIII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00809-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 10 of 10