Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01992/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01992-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 05:7703 Discrimination - Review of Agency 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

DAVID SHAYNE HEINE; CALIFORNIA 

VEAL TECH, INC., A CALIFORNIA 

CORPORATION

Plaintiffs,

v.

TIM VILSACK, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS UNITED STATES 

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE; 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE; UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS 

SERVICE; YUDHBIR SHARMA, DVM; 

USDA EMPLOYEE KNOWN ONLY AS 

“DR. PANNU”; USDA EMPLOYEE 

KNOWN ONLY AS “KEN”; USDA 

EMPLOYEE KNOWN ONLY AS “DR. 

REDDING”; USDA EMPLOYEE 

KNOWN ONLY AS “DR. HENLEY”; DR. 

AMY LIEDER; PENNY PATRALI; AND 

DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-CV-01992-AWI-SMS

ORDER DIRECTING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

(Doc. 47)

Before the court in the above styled and numbered cause is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 

File a Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 47). The matter is currently before the Court on the 

parties’ cross-briefs (Docs. 50 & 51), which were submitted without oral argument to the 

Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. 

Case 1:12-cv-01992-AWI-SMS Document 53 Filed 10/23/14 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

This Court hereby directs supplemental briefing addressing the following: (1) whether 28 

U.S.C. § 2401(b) applies in this case, and if so, whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative 

remedies or gave proper notice of his new tort claims against the United States as set out in 

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint; and (2) whether, pursuant to Sheehan v. United States, 896 

F.2d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 1990), Plaintiff’s new claims of negligent and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress are not excluded by Section 2680(h) where “the substance the conduct relied 

upon constituted a specifically excluded tort,” namely, “abuse of process.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) 

(the United States is not liable for “[a]ny claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, 

false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or 

interference with contract rights.”) (emphasis added)).

Each party is directed to submit its supplemental brief (of no more than 7 pages and without 

including a recitation of the known facts) on or before November 5, 2014. If necessary, either or 

both parties may submit a response to the opposing party’s brief on or before November 12, 2014. 

The matter shall then be deemed submitted for decision pursuant to Local Rule 230(h) (Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 78). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2014 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01992-AWI-SMS Document 53 Filed 10/23/14 Page 2 of 2