Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00577/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00577-4/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

MARK MCAFFEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA

HIGHWAY PATROL, CHP OFFICER GREG

MAKEL, CHP OFFICER SALCIDO, CHP

CAPT. G.L. FIEF, CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,

HEARING OFFICER G. VERDUGO, and

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-0577 OWW NEW 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 3/31/08

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 4/15/08

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 4/30/08

Settlement Conference Date:

3/18/08 10:00 Ctrm. 8

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 7/7/08 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 8/19/08 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-6 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

August 16, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Bruce W. Nickerson, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Jeffrey R. Vincent, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, appeared

on behalf of Defendants. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiff’s case is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 1:07-cv-00577-OWW -GSA Document 23 Filed 08/22/07 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

based on violation of rights secured by the Fourth Amendment of

the United States Constitution. He alleges that he was

wrongfully arrested on April 21, 2006, and that as a result of

excessive force during the arrest by California Highway Patrol

Officers Makel and Salcido he suffered injury. Plaintiff also

alleges causes of action under state law for false arrest,

negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In

regards to Captain Fief of the California Highway Patrol,

Plaintiff alleges that policies implemented by the Captain

resulted in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights.

2. Defendants contend that there was probable cause to

arrest Plaintiff. Plaintiff was detained and arrested following

an assault by Plaintiff on Officer Makel. Plaintiff resisted

detention and arrest so that it became necessary to use force. 

Officers Makel and Salcido’s use of force was appropriate under

the circumstances and consistent with policies of the California

Highway Patrol. Defendants deny that Plaintiff was injured

during the arrest. Even if Defendants used more force in the

arrest of Plaintiff than was reasonable, it was reasonable for

them to believe that such force was appropriate so that liability

is precluded by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. Plaintiff has been ordered to file his third amended

complaint in conformance with the Court’s order of July 27, 2007,

by August 16, 2007. Plaintiff does not anticipate any further

amendment to the pleadings. Defendants have not yet answered the

complaint but anticipate filing an answer in response to a

complaint that conforms to the Court’s July 27, 2007, order.

Case 1:07-cv-00577-OWW -GSA Document 23 Filed 08/22/07 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

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and a

resident of the Eastern District of California.

2. Plaintiff was arrested on April 21, 2006, by

California Highway Patrol Officers Greg Makel and David Salcido.

3. Each Officer was acting in the course and scope of

employment at all times alleged in the Complaint.

4. Each Officer was acting under color of law in

discharging duties as a peace officer at all times alleged in the

complaint.

5. The April 21, 2006, arrest was made at the

Department of Motor Vehicle Office in Fresno, California.

6. Pepper spray was used during the arrest.

7. At the time of the arrest, Plaintiff was

handcuffed and taken into custody and remanded to the Fresno

County Jail.

B. Contested Facts.

1. Defendants contend that Plaintiff assaulted

Officer Makel in the hallway of the DMV Office in Fresno. 

2. Plaintiff denies that he assaulted Officer Makel

and contends that he was tackled by Officers Makel and Salcido.

3. Plaintiff contends Officer Makel used unnecessary

force to arrest him. Plaintiff denies that he offered any

resistance at any time during the incident.

4. Defendant Officers contend that Plaintiff resisted

arrest and that reasonable force was necessary to subdue, arrest,

Case 1:07-cv-00577-OWW -GSA Document 23 Filed 08/22/07 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 take Plaintiff into custody. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

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

1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq. 

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

3. Supplemental jurisdiction exists over state claims

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

4. The parties agree that, to the extent jurisdiction

over supplemental claims exists, the substantive law of the State

of California provides the rule of decision. 

B. Contested. 

1. Whether and to what extent any force was necessary

to effectuate an arrest of Plaintiff.

2. Whether any force used on Plaintiff by any

Defendant was excessive.

3. Whether any use of force caused illegal

deprivation of the Constitutional rights of Plaintiff.

4. Whether any Constitutional deprivation of any

rights of Plaintiff was the legal cause of harm to Plaintiff.

5. Whether Defendants were justified in arresting

Plaintiff.

6. Whether the force used against Plaintiff to arrest

and take him into custody was reasonable.

7. Whether qualified immunity exists under the

totality of the circumstances.

8. Whether or not any immunities provided by the

substantive law of the State of California bar Plaintiff’s

Case 1:07-cv-00577-OWW -GSA Document 23 Filed 08/22/07 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

claims.

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

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. The parties’ initial disclosures shall be made on or

before September 17, 2007. 

2. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before March 31, 2008.

3. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before January 18, 2008. Any

rebuttal or supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or

before February 18, 2008. 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

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

Case 1:07-cv-00577-OWW -GSA Document 23 Filed 08/22/07 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

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

4. 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 April 15, 2008, and

heard on May 16, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Gary

Austin in Courtroom 8. 

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 April 30, 2008, and will be heard on June 2,

2008, 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. July 7, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor,

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 

Case 1:07-cv-00577-OWW -GSA Document 23 Filed 08/22/07 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

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. Trial Date.

1. August 19, 2008, 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. 6 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

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

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for March 18,

2008, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8 before the Honorable Gary

Austin, United States Magistrate Judge. 

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

Case 1:07-cv-00577-OWW -GSA Document 23 Filed 08/22/07 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

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: 

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.

Case 1:07-cv-00577-OWW -GSA Document 23 Filed 08/22/07 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

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. The parties agree that the issue of the amount, if any,

of punitive damages shall be tried in a second phase before the

same jury after any determination of liability, compensatory

damages, and entitlement to punitive damages, if any.

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVI. 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.

XVII. 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. 

Case 1:07-cv-00577-OWW -GSA Document 23 Filed 08/22/07 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

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: August 17, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00577-OWW -GSA Document 23 Filed 08/22/07 Page 10 of 10