Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00574/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00574-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

 Mr. Blue did not file a formal opposition to the motion for civil contempt but did appear at the

hearing. Plaintiffs John Tennison and Antoine Goff filed a “response” to Defendants’ motion which the

Court shall construe as an amicus brief.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN TENNISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et

al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-0574 CW (EMC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT

AGAINST LUTHER T. BLUE

(Docket No. 131)

Defendants Prentice Earl Sanders and Napoleon Hendrix have filed a motion, asking the

Court to hold Luther T. Blue, a nonparty witness, in civil contempt for his failure to respond to

questions at a deposition. Mr. Blue appeared for a deposition on April 18, 2005, without legal

representation and, upon confirming his name and address, he proceeded to assert his Fifth

Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to all questions.

Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral

argument of counsel,1 the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ motion for civil contempt.

I. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(e) provides that “[f]ailure by any person without adequate

excuse to obey a subpoena served upon that person may be deemed a contempt of the court from

which the subpoena issued.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e). The authority of a magistrate judge, such as the

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 336 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

undersigned, to hold a person in contempt is limited by 28 U.S.C. § 636(e). In this case, §

636(e)(6)(B)(iii) is applicable. Under that provision, if an act by a person 

constitutes a civil contempt, the magistrate judge shall forthwith

certify the facts to a district judge and may serve or cause to be served,

upon any person whose behavior is brought into question under this

paragraph, an order requiring such person to appear before a district

judge upon a day certain to show cause why that person should not be

adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so certified. The district

judge shall thereupon hear the evidence as to the act or conduct

complained of and, if it is such as to warrant punishment, punish such

person in the same manner and to the same extent as for a contempt

committed before a district judge.

28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii).

A. Factual Findings

Considering the evidence presented by the parties as well as all other evidence of record, the

Court hereby makes the following findings of fact. The findings below are made only for the

purpose of this motion.

1. On January 3, 1990, during the course of the investigation of the murder of Roderick

“Cooley” Shannon, Officers Sanders and Hendrix spoke to Chante Smith, who informed them that

Mr. Blue, along with other individuals, was present at the murder scene. See Purcell Decl., Ex. 1.

2. On February 9, 1990, Officer Sanders interviewed Mr. Blue. See Sanford Decl., Ex. A. 

Officer Sanders informed Mr. Blue that an eyewitness had placed him at the murder scene and

suggested, inter alia, that Mr. Blue played a role in the murder of Mr. Shannon. For example,

Officer Sanders suggested that Mr. Blue was part of a conspiracy to kill Mr. Shannon or at least

aided or abetted in the murder by getting “possed up with a group of other young men” who chased

down Mr. Shannon to avenge the murders of two other individuals. Id. at 27; see also id. at 27-28

(“[A]re you gonna sit as a witness or you gonna join the group on the other side of the table for

conspiracy to commit murder[?]”). Mr. Blue maintained that he was not present at the scene.

3. On February 14, 1990, Officer Sanders interviewed Mr. Blue a second time. See

Sanford Decl., Ex. B. Mr. Blue maintained that he knew nothing about the murder. Before

terminating the interview, Officer Sanders read Mr. Blue his Miranda rights. 

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 336 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

4. On November 6, 2000, some ten years later, Mr. Blue signed a declaration stating that

he had in fact witnessed the Shannon murder and that Plaintiffs were not among the persons present

at the scene. See Sanford Decl., Ex. C. Based on the Court’s review of the record, it appears that the

declaration was submitted as part of Mr. Tennison’s habeas petition considered by Judge Wilken. 

See Order of 8/26/03, at 62.

5. At present, there is an active and ongoing investigation into the murder of Mr. Shannon.

B. Legal Conclusions

In their motion for civil contempt, Defendants contended that (1) Mr. Blue improperly

invoked his right against self-incrimination during his deposition and that (2) even if the privilege

were properly invoked, Mr. Blue waived the privilege through his prior interviews with Officer

Sanders as well as with the declaration of November 6, 2000. However, at the hearing on the

motion, Defendants conceded that the privilege was properly invoked and focused instead on the

waiver issue only.

1. As conceded by Defendants, Mr. Blue properly invoked the privilege. There is today an

active and ongoing investigation into the murder of Mr. Shannon and there is evidence that Mr. Blue

was present at the murder scene. Moreover, as indicated by the facts above, the police believed that

Mr. Blue may have played a role in the murder, whether as a co-conspirator or an aider and abettor. 

(Notably, Officer Sanders read Mr. Blue his Miranda rights prior to terminating the second

interview.) There is no evidence that the police no longer hold this belief. Consequently, Mr. Blue

“reasonably believe[d] [his testimony] could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other

evidence that might be so used.” Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445 (1972). 

2. Mr. Blue did not waive his right against self-incrimination based on the prior interviews

with Officer Sanders or the declaration of November 6, 2000. There is no dispute that both the

interviews and declaration took place well before – and therefore not as a part of – this civil lawsuit,

and it is well settled that “a waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege is limited to the particular

proceeding in which the waiver occurs.” United States v. Licavoli, 604 F.2d 613, 623 (9th Cir.

1979); see also United States v. Trejo-Zambrano, 582 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir. 1968) (“A waiver of

the Fifth Amendment privilege at one stage of a proceeding is not a waiver of that right for other

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 336 Filed 08/02/05 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

stages.”); In re Neff, 206 F.2d 149, 152 (3d Cir. 1953) (“It is settled by the overwhelming weight of

authority that a person who has waived his privilege of silence in one trial or proceeding is not

estopped to assert it as to the same matter in a subsequent trial or proceeding.”); cf. United States v.

Salerno, 505 U.S. 317, 319-20 (1992) (not questioning witnesses’ refusal to testify at trial based on

the Fifth Amendment privilege even though they had already testified before a grand jury).

II. CONCLUSION

Because Mr. Blue properly invoked his right against self-incrimination and did not waive that

privilege, the Court finds no basis for civil contempt. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED,

and the Court shall not certify any facts to Judge Wilken under § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii) that Mr. Blue’s

refusal to respond to questions at his deposition constituted an act of civil contempt.

This order disposes of Docket No. 131.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2005

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 336 Filed 08/02/05 Page 4 of 4