Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01318/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01318-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

CHERYL LEE,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendant(s).

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Old Case No. 1: 05 CV 01318 REC DLB

New Case No. 1: 05 CV 01318 REC TAG

SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

and ORDER REASSIGNING CASE

Discovery Deadlines: 

Initial Disclosures: January 6, 2006

Non Expert: November 3, 2006

Expert: December 15, 2006

Discovery Status Conference: 

June 8, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines:

Filing: November 10, 2006

Hearing: December 18, 2006

Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 

Filing: December 18, 2006

Hearing: February 5, 2007

Settlement Conference:

November 17, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.

Pre-Trial Conference:

March 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.

Trial: May 1, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.

Courtroom 1 JT 8 to 10 days

Case 1:05-cv-01318-AWI-TAG Document 19 Filed 12/27/05 Page 1 of 13
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

I. Reassignment 

It appears that this action is venued in Kern County and therefore it is ORDERED

that this case be reassigned from the undersigned to the Honorable Theresa A. Goldner, U. S.

Magistrate Judge. The new case number shall be 1: 05 CV 01318 REC TAG.

II. Date of Scheduling Conference

December 22, 2005.

III. Appearances of Counsel

Charles R. Chapman appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Jennifer L. Thurston appeared on behalf of Defendants County of Kern, Kern

County Sheriff’s Department, F. Banuelos and Amado. 

Fred Kumpel appeared on behalf of Defendants D. Lindini and Holtz.

IV. The Pleadings

A. Summary of the Pleadings

This case arises out of an arrest of plaintiff which occurred when she was

allegedly involved in a traffic accident. At the time, the arresting officers (not parties here),

determined that plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol, arrested her and transported her to

the Kern County Central Receiving Facility.

Plaintiff’s Contentions

 On September 10, 2004, when plaintiff was being processed at the Kern

County jail, Defendants Lindini, Banuelos, Amado, Holts and Does 1-50, without cause, reason

or justification, assaulted, battered, kicked, punched, threw and used excessive, and unreasonable

force upon plaintiff.

Defendants Lindini, Banuelos, Amado, Holts and Does 1 through 50,

inclusive, and each of them, while acting within the course and scope of their authority and under

color of law, used excessive and objectively unreasonable threats of force, force and violence, as

elucidated in, e.g., Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 276 -77, 114 S.Ct. 807, 814 -15, 127

Case 1:05-cv-01318-AWI-TAG Document 19 Filed 12/27/05 Page 2 of 13
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

L.Ed.2d 114, (1994) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (seizure continues throughout criminal trial);

Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 415 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he Fourth Amendment sets the

applicable constitutional limitations for considering claims of excessive force during pretrial

detention.”), Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1197 (9th Cir. 2002), cert.

denied, 537 U.S. 1106, 123 S.Ct. 872, 154 L.Ed.2d 775 (2003) (same), and Fontana v. Haskin,

262 F.3d 871, 879 (9th Cir. 2001) (“excessive use of force by a law enforcement officer in the

course of transporting an arrestee gives rise to a section 1983 claim based upon a violation of the

Fourth Amendment”), against Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee. 

In addition, Defendants Lindini, Banuelos, Amado, Holts and Does 1

through 100, inclusive, and each of them, while acting within the course and scope of their

authority and under color of law, and in performing the acts alleged above, acted with deliberate

indifference, as elucidated in, e.g., Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1443 (9th

Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 972 (1992), to Plaintiff’s right, as a pretrial detainee, to be free

from punishment.

In addition, above, Defendants Lindini, Banuelos, Amado, Holts and Does

1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, while acting within the course and scope of their

authority and under color of law, used excessive threats of force, force and violence that

amounted to punishment, as elucidated in, e.g., Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10, 109

S.Ct. 1865, 1871 n.10, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) and Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536 -37, 99

S.Ct. 1861, 1872-73, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979), against and upon the plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, in

a willful, malicious, and unlawful manner and without cause, provocation or legal justification

thereby causing severe personal injuries to Plaintiff. 

Defendants Lindini, Banuelos, Amado, Holts and/or other unknown

officers and supervising personnel, sued herein as Does 51 through 100, inclusive, knew that

Defendants had placed Plaintiff in a dangerous situation; each had the authority and

Case 1:05-cv-01318-AWI-TAG Document 19 Filed 12/27/05 Page 3 of 13
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

responsibility to order the involved officers to cease their unlawful activities, but each failed and

refused to prevent or stop said officers from assaulting and battering the Plaintiff.

Defendants County of Kern, Kern County Sheriff’s Department, and Does

51 through 50, inclusive, are responsible for implementing, maintaining, sanctioning and/or

condoning policies, customs and/or practices with the respect to the use of force by officers

employed and under the supervision of said Defendants. 

The conduct of Defendants Lindini, Banuelos, Amado, Holts and Does 1

through 50, inclusive, was consistent with the polices, customs and practices set forth by

Defendants County of Kern, Kern County Sheriffs Department, and Does 51-100, inclusive,

regarding the use of force, and that the use of force by Lindini, Banuelos, Amado, Holts and

Does 1-50 was ratified by said Defendants, and each of them. Defendants County of Kern, Kern

County Sheriff’s Department, and Does 51-100, inclusive, and each of them, knew or should

have known that Defendants’ customs, practices, policies regarding the use of force were so

inadequate that it was obvious that a failure to correct them would result in future incidents of

excessive force by their subordinates, officers, employees and/or agents. Said Defendants, and

each of them, knew or should have known that acts and/or omissions similar to those complained

of herein were likely to occur. 

At all relevant times, Defendants County of Kern, Kern County Sheriffs

Department, and Does 51-100, inclusive, authorized and/or acquiesced in the aforementioned

customs, practices, policies and the commission of the type of acts by its officers similar to those

which are alleged herein to have caused the injuries to Plaintiff. Furthermore, said Defendants

were deliberately indifferent to the probability of the occurrence of such acts and failed to correct

said customs, practices and policies, thereby causing excessive force to be applied to Plaintiff.

Defendants County of Kern, Kern County Sheriff’s Department, and Does

51-100 and each of them, maintained or permitted an official policy, custom or practice of

knowingly permitting the occurrence of the type of wrongs set forth above and, based upon the

Case 1:05-cv-01318-AWI-TAG Document 19 Filed 12/27/05 Page 4 of 13
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

principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98

S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) and City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 109 S.Ct.

1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989), are liable for all injuries sustained by Plaintiff as set forth

herein.

Defendants County of Kern, Kern County Sheriff’s Department, and Does

51-100 and each of them, were objectively deliberately indifferent, as elucidated in, e.g., Farmer

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 841, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1981, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), City of Canton,

Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 1208, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989) (O'Connor, J.,

concurring in part, dissenting in part), and Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1198 n.1

(9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1106, 123 S.Ct. 872, 154 L.Ed.2d 775 (2003), to the

practice of members of Defendant Kern County Sheriff’s Department using excessive and

unreasonable threat of force, force and violence against and upon pretrial detainees in a willful,

malicious, and unlawful manner and without cause, provocation or legal justification, and with

the intent to do great bodily harm to such pretrial detainees.

Defendants County of Kern, Kern County Sheriff’s Department, and Does

51-100 and each of them, had actual and/or constructive knowledge, as elucidated in, e.g.,

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 841, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1981, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), City of

Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 1208, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989)

(O'Connor, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), and Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d

1175, 1186 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1106, 123 S.Ct. 872, 154 L.Ed.2d 775 (2003),

that it was the practice of members of Defendant Kern County Sheriff’s Department using

excessive and unreasonable threat of force, force and violence against and upon pretrial detainees

in a willful, malicious, and unlawful manner and without cause, provocation or legal

justification, and with the intent to do great bodily harm to such pretrial detainees.

Plaintiff was deprived, under color of law, of rights, privileges,

immunities, and substantive and procedural due process, as guaranteed by the Fourth and

Case 1:05-cv-01318-AWI-TAG Document 19 Filed 12/27/05 Page 5 of 13
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

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to be secure in person and not to be

subjected to the use of unwarranted, unjustified and excessive force. Plaintiff is therefore

entitled to recover damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Defendants’ Contentions

The defendants contend that plaintiff was belligerent and assaultive when

she entered the jail facility and continued to be so during the booking procedure. Defendants

assert that plaintiff kicked the detention officers and spat at them and attempted to kick the

arresting officer. As a result of plaintiff continuing to spit at the officers, Lee was placed in a

“spit mask” and placed in a sobering cell. At the conclusion of Lee’s criminal proceedings, she

was convicted of being under the influence of alcohol and was ordered to submit to HIV testing

due to the fact that she spit in the eye of one of the officers.

Defendants contend that only reasonable force was used on Lee. 

B. Orders Re Amendment of Pleadings

No amendments are proposed at this time. 

V. Factual Summary

A. Admitted Facts which are deemed proven without further proceedings:

1. Plaintiff pled no contest to a violation of Vehicle Code §

23103.5(a) in connection with her arrest on September 10, 2004.

2. Plaintiff was ordered to submit to HIV testing.

3. The charges of Battery by Gassing (Penal Code § 243.9) and

Battery Against a Custodial Officer (Penal Code § 243.1) were

dismissed in exchange for plaintiff’s agreement to make restitution.

4. On September 10, 2004, plaintiff refused to submit to field sobriety

tests and refused to submit to a chemical test to determine her

blood alcohol content.

Case 1:05-cv-01318-AWI-TAG Document 19 Filed 12/27/05 Page 6 of 13
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

5. Plaintiff was convicted on January 24, 2001 of driving while under

the influence of alcohol. [Plaintiff contests the relevancy and

admissibility of said conviction, but not the fact of same.]

6. A “spit mask” was placed on plaintiff on September 10, 2004.

7. Plaintiff swore at the detention officers and the arresting officer

during the booking/receiving process.

8. Plaintiff was placed in restraints on September 10, 2004.

B. Contested Facts:

1. Whether plaintiff kicked and struck the detention officers

2. Whether plaintiff refused to comply with instructions during the

booking/receiving process at the Central Receiving Facility.

3. Whether plaintiff became violent with the arresting officers.

4. Whether plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as a result of the

incident.

5. Whether plaintiff permitted medical staff to evaluate her fully.

6. Whether Defendants Lindini, Banuelos, Amado, Holts and Does 1

through 50 used excessive force on plaintiff.

7. Whether Defendants County of Kern, Kern County Sheriff’s

Department, and Does 51-100 and each of them, maintained or

permitted a policy, custom or practice of knowingly permitting the

occurrence of the type of wrongs asserted by plaintiff.

8. Whether Defendants County of Kern, Kern County Sheriff’s

Department, and Does 51-100 were objectively deliberately

indifferent to the practice of members of Defendant Kern County

Sheriff’s Department using excessive and unreasonable threat of

force, force and violence against and upon pretrial detainees.

Case 1:05-cv-01318-AWI-TAG Document 19 Filed 12/27/05 Page 7 of 13
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

9. Whether Defendants County of Kern, Kern County Sheriff’s

Department, and Does 51-100 had actual and/or constructive

knowledge that it was the practice of members of Defendant Kern

County Sheriff’s Department using excessive and unreasonable

threat of force, force and violence against and upon pretrial

detainees 

10. Whether the Court’s order requiring plaintiff to submit to HIV

testing as a part of her sentence in connection for her arrest on

September 10, 2004, was as a result of her spitting in the eye and

face of defendant Daniel Lindini.

11. Whether plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at the time of

the alleged incident.

12. Whether plaintiff displayed objective symptoms of alcohol

intoxication at the time of the alleged incident.

13. Whether plaintiff was convicted of being under the influence of

alcohol in connection with her arrest on September 10, 2004.

VI. Legal Issues

A. Uncontested:

1. Jurisdiction

2. Venue

B. Contested:

1. Whether any unlawful force was used on plaintiff.

2. Whether the defendants are immunized from liability.

3. Whether plaintiff’s Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights were

violated by defendants.

Case 1:05-cv-01318-AWI-TAG Document 19 Filed 12/27/05 Page 8 of 13
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

4. Whether the County of Kern has an unconstitutional custom or

policy regarding the use of unreasonable force.

5. Whether any policy or custom of the County of Kern caused any

damage to plaintiff.

6. Whether defendants Lindini, Holtz, Banuelos or Amado acted with

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

VII. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date

The parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(a)(1) on or before January 6, 2006.

The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or

before November 3, 2006 and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before December 15,

2006.

The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before

November 3, 2006, and to disclose all supplemental experts on or before November 24, 2006. 

The written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. 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 not disclosed pursuant to this order.

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery

relating to experts and their opinions. Experts must 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, which may include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert

testimony.

A Status Conference Re: Discovery and Scheduling shall be held on June 8, 2006,

at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5 before the Honorable Theresa A. Goldner, U. S. Magistrate Judge,

counsel and parties appearing pro se may appear by telephone upon three (3) day notice. No later

Case 1:05-cv-01318-AWI-TAG Document 19 Filed 12/27/05 Page 9 of 13
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

then five days prior to the Status Conference the parties shall submit a written Status Report

containing the following: 

A. A description of the discovery which has been completed to date, the

discovery which is pending or scheduled, and the additional discovery which each party expects

to conduct prior to the Discovery Deadline.

B. Whether any party proposes any changes in the currently scheduled

deadlines or dates.

VIII. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule

All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any discovery motions, shall be

filed no later than November 10, 2006, and heard on or before December 18, 2006. Nondispositive motions are heard on Monday at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Theresa A. Goldner,

U. S. Magistrate Judge. Counsel must comply with Local Rule 37-251 with respect to

discovery disputes or the motion will be denied without prejudice and dropped from

calendar.

In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate Judge may grant applications for an

order shortening time pursuant to Local Rule 6-142(d). However, if counsel does not obtain an

order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 37-251. 

Counsel may appear and argue non-dispositive motions by telephone, providing a

written request to so appear is made to the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Clerk no later than five

(5) court days before the noticed hearing date. In the event that more than one attorney requests

to appear by telephone then it shall be the obligation of the moving part(ies) to arrange and

originate a conference call to the court. 

All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions shall be filed no later than December 18, 2006,

and heard no later than February 5, 2007, in Courtroom 1 before the Honorable Robert E. Coyle,

Senior United States District Court Judge. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply

with Local Rules 78-230 and 56-260.

Case 1:05-cv-01318-AWI-TAG Document 19 Filed 12/27/05 Page 10 of 13
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

 If WordPerfect 12 is not available to the parties then the latest version of WordPerfect or 1

any other word processing program in general use for IBM compatible personal computers is

acceptable. 

 Insurance carriers, business organizations, and governmental bodies or agencies whose 2

settlement agreements are subject to approval by legislative bodies, executive committees, boards

11

IX. Pre-Trial Conference Date

March 19, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Goldner.

 The parties are ordered to file a Joint Pretrial Statement pursuant to Local

Rule 16-281(a)(2). The parties are further directed to submit a digital copy of their pretrial

statement in Word Perfect 12 format, directly to Judge Goldner's chambers by e-mailing it to

1

TAGOrders@caed.uscourts.gov.

Counsels' attention is directed to Rules 16-281 and 16-282 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.

X. Trial Date

May 1, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 before the Honorable Robert E. Coyle,

Senior United States District Court Judge.

A. This is a jury trial.

B. Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time: 8 to 10 days. 

C. Counsel's attention is directed to Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern

District of California, Rule 16-285.

XI. Settlement Conference

A Settlement Conference is scheduled for November 17, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.

before the Honorable Theresa A. Goldner, U. S. Magistrate Judge.

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. 2

Case 1:05-cv-01318-AWI-TAG Document 19 Filed 12/27/05 Page 11 of 13
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

of directors or the like shall be represented by a person or persons who occupy high executive

positions in the party organization and who will be directly involved in the process of approval of

any settlement offers or agreements. To the extent possible the representative shall have the

authority, if he or she deems it appropriate, to settle the action on terms consistent with the

opposing party's most recent demand.

12

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

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

submit, directly to Judge Goldner's chambers by e-mail to TAGOrders@caed.uscourts.gov, a

Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. The statement should not be filed with the

Clerk of the Court nor served on any other party, although the parties may file a Notice of

Lodging of Settlement Conference Statement. Each statement shall be clearly marked

"confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement Conference indicated prominently

thereon. 

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,

pretrial and trial. 

E. The relief sought.

F. The party's position on settlement, including present demands and

offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers and demands.

XII. Request for Bifurcation, Appointment of Special Master, or other

Techniques to Shorten Trial

Not applicable at this time.

Case 1:05-cv-01318-AWI-TAG Document 19 Filed 12/27/05 Page 12 of 13
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 13

XIII. Related Matters Pending

There are no pending related matters.

XIV. Compliance with Federal Procedure

All counsel are expected to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California, and to keep

abreast of any amendments thereto. The Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it

is to efficiently handle its increasing case load and sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow

the Rules as provided in both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of

Practice for the Eastern District of California.

XV. Effect of this Order

The foregoing order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the

agenda most suitable to dispose of this case. 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 status conference.

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.

Failure to comply with this order shall result in the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 22, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

9b0h UNI ie TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01318-AWI-TAG Document 19 Filed 12/27/05 Page 13 of 13