Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00363/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00363-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

NATHANIEL SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF STOCKTON; OFFICER 

MAYER, OFFICER ROBIN 

HARRISON, OFFICER MICHAEL 

PEREZ, AND FORMER CHIEF OF 

POLICE BLAIR ULRING, in their 

individual capacities; and 

CHIEF OF POLICE ERIC JONES, 

in his official capacity,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-CV-00363-GEB-AC 

ORDER REFERRING THE DISMISSAL 

MOTION FILED BY CITY OF STOCKTON 

AND CHIEF OF POLICE ERIC JONES 

TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT

Plaintiff filed a Complaint in district court alleging 

federal and state law claims concerning his arrest on February 

13, 2013. Defendants City of Stockton (“the City”) and Chief of 

Police Eric Jones (“Jones”) (collectively “Defendants”) seek 

dismissal of each claim contending the claims are barred since 

Plaintiff did not file a Proof of Claim in the City’s bankruptcy 

proceedings. Specifically, Defendants contend: 

[The City] filed a Chapter 9 case in the 

United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

Eastern District of California. (Case No. 

2012-23118). According to Section II.D. of

the Amended Plan of Adjustment [(“the Plan”)] 

(page 32), all proofs of claim for Postpetition claims that arise prior to August 

Case 2:15-cv-00363-KJM-AC Document 18 Filed 05/06/15 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

16, 2013 must have been filed by August 16, 

2013, in order to be considered timely. . . . 

The terms of the Plan are binding on all 

creditors, including Plaintiff. The Plan 

provides (on page 49) that upon the 

“Effective Date,” the City is discharged from 

all its debts other than those excepted from 

the discharge Plan or by statute. . . . 

Plaintiff in this case did not file a Proof

of Claim with the [B]ankruptcy [C]ourt]. As 

such, . . . Plaintiff [is barred] from 

recovering anything on [his] claims against 

[the City]. . . Additionally, [Plaintiff is 

barred] . . . from recovering anything on 

[his] claims against [Jones] since he is 

being sued in his official capacity as Chief 

of Police for the Stockton Police 

Department.” 

(Defs.’City of Stockton and Chief of Police Eric Jones’ Not. of 

Mot. & Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”) 2:2-22, ECF No.9.) 

Defendants’ dismissal motion is premised on

interpretation of an order or orders issued by the Bankruptcy 

Court in the City’s chapter 9 bankruptcy proceeding, captioned In 

re City of Stockton, California, Case No. 2012-32118. Therefore,

Defendants’ dismissal motion is referred to the bankruptcy court 

under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and the motion scheduled for hearing 

before this district judge on May 11, 2015 is deemed withdrawn. 

Dated: May 5, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00363-KJM-AC Document 18 Filed 05/06/15 Page 2 of 2