Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01807/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01807-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY LUM, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-10-1807 LKK/DAD 

Plaintiffs,

v.

 O R D E R

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment

filed by defendants. In that motion, defendants assert that the

officers who arrested Lum were employees of the County of San

Joaquin and not the City of Lathrop. Evidence in the record

indicates that the arresting officers were performing police

services for the City of Lathrop, pursuant to a contract.

Defendants assert that, as County employees, the arresting officers

can not possibly have policymaking authority for the City of

Lathrop. See Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. 14:24-25, ECF No. 71. Plaintiffs

assert that Sergeants Walters and Pease were “on the scene as

1

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 99 Filed 03/02/12 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

supervisors,” and that they were contracted out to the City of

Lathrop. Therefore, according to plaintiffs, a jury could conclude

that Sergeants Walters and Pease had policymaking authority for the

City of Lathrop. 

The court finds that the briefing from both sides on this

issue is inadequate. Accordingly, the court ORDERS each party to

submit additional briefing addressing the following questions:

1) The contract appears to require the appointment of a

police chief. Was such a person appointed and, if so,

did he or she have a policy regarding arrest of persons

having apparent mental problems. If no one was

appointed, what is the effect?

2) Under the particular circumstances of this case, which

municipal entity, if any, is responsible for policy made

by Sergeants Walters and Pease while they are employed

by the County but performing work for the City pursuant

to contract? The parties SHALL submit their briefs on

these questions no later than twenty-one (21) days from

the issuance of this order; the briefs shall be no more

than 20 pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 1, 2012. 

2

Case 2:10-cv-01807-MCE-EFB Document 99 Filed 03/02/12 Page 2 of 2