Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01627/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01627-8/pdf.json

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

---

1 

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS PAUL 

BALDWIN, JAMERY RAY, AND THE COUNTY OF INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEFF GILBERT, 

Plaintiff, 

 

vs. 

OFFICER PAUL BALDWIN, OFFICER 

JAMERY RAY, and INYO COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 

Defendants. 

______________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 1:05-CV-1627-OWW-NEW (TAG) 

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF 

DEFENDANTS PAUL BALDWIN, 

JAMERY RAY, AND THE COUNTY 

OF INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT 

The motion of defendants PAUL BALDWIN, JAMERY RAY, and the COUNTY OF 

INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, for summary judgment, came on 

regularly for hearing before this Court at 10:00 a.m., on October 29, 2007, in Courtroom 3, the 

Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District Judge, Presiding. John D. Kirby, Esq., of 

the Law Offices of John D. Kirby, A Professional Corporation, appeared as attorney for all 

defendants. Plaintiff Jeff Gilbert, in pro se, did not appear. 

After considering all of the moving papers and the case file in this matter, after hearing 

the positions of moving-party defendants, and after considering all other matters before the 

Court, the Court issued its Memorandum Decision herein on October 29, 2007. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01627-OWW -GSA Document 53 Filed 11/20/07 Page 1 of 12
2 

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS PAUL 

BALDWIN, JAMERY RAY, AND THE COUNTY OF INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

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

NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with the foregoing, the Court finds as follows: 

1. On January 26, 2004, defendant Deputy Sheriff Paul Baldwin of the Inyo County 

Sheriff’s Department was working the night shift patrol (8:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m.) in the Northern 

Division of Inyo County. At approximately 9:30 p.m., he received a call from Inyo County 

Sheriff’s Dispatch advising that a call had been received from a female reporting party, from the 

Aspendell area of Inyo County, and the female reporting party advised that when she had 

arrived home that night, after having been gone for the weekend, she observed, from outside her 

home, and while looking through a front window, a strange man inside her home watching 

television. 

2. Inyo County Sheriff’s Department Corporal Jamery Ray, who was working as a K9 unit in the same Northern Area, followed Deputy Baldwin to Aspendell and assisted in the 

response to this call. 

3. Deputy Baldwin and Corporal Ray arrived in the Aspendell area at approximately 

9:50 p.m. It was dark outside. 

4. Deputy Baldwin contacted the reporting party, Ms. Camille Suetos, who was at a 

neighbor’s house. Deputy Baldwin was told by Ms. Suetos that she and her neighbor placed a 

telephone call to her home, and that a man whom she did not know answered. The man told 

her that someone named “John Anderson” had told him he could stay there. Ms. Suetos advised 

Deputy Baldwin that she told the man in her home that he was in the wrong house, that it was 

her house, that he was trespassing, and that he had to leave. 

5. Ms. Suetos gave Deputy Baldwin a key to her residence, and permission to enter. 

6. Deputy Baldwin and Corporal Ray decided to drive to the Suetos residence, park 

a house or two away, walk up to the house, ring the doorbell, announce that the Sheriff’s 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01627-OWW -GSA Document 53 Filed 11/20/07 Page 2 of 12
3 

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS PAUL 

BALDWIN, JAMERY RAY, AND THE COUNTY OF INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

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

Department was present, and then, if the person did not answer or reveal his presence, they 

would open the door, make a canine announcement, and hopefully, the man would come out. 1

7. They approached the residence. There were no lights on inside or outside the 

house. Deputy Baldwin rang the door bell, but did not hear a ring. He then opened the screen 

door, and knocked several times, very loudly. He also announced, several times, very loudly: 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; PLEASE OPEN THE DOOR ... SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; 

OPEN THE DOOR. There was no response. 

8. Deputy Baldwin, using the key that Ms. Suetos had given him, unlocked the dead 

bolt in the door, and opened the door. It swung inward, from his right to his left as he was 

looking at the door. He did not enter the house at that time, but rather announced very loudly: 

“Sheriff’s Department; if you’re inside, please come out now.” He announced this two or three 

times. The house remained dark; and there was no response. 

9. At that point, Deputy Baldwin stepped to the side, and Corporal Ray took over, 

giving the K-9 announcement and warning. Corporal Ray made the announcement two or three 

times. After the second or third K-9 announcement, a male subject from inside the residence 

call out: “I’m in here.” 

10. Corporal Ray backed the dog away. Deputy Baldwin told the man inside the 

house: “Sir, I want you to come over here, and I want to see your hands; put your hands in the 

air; walk over to the door.” The man responded: “No.” There then appeared to be no need to 

send the dog in to search for and hurt someone, so Deputy Baldwin announced that he was 

coming in. He was dressed in his Sheriff’s Department patrol officer uniform. Before entering 

the residence, he announced, two or three times, loudly, that it was: “Sheriff’s Department; I’m 

coming in.” 

 

1

 The K-9 announcement is, in substance, where the K-9 officer announces that a K-9 is present, 

and that if anyone is in the house and does not reveal his presence, the dog will be released, and 

will “find you and hurt you.” 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01627-OWW -GSA Document 53 Filed 11/20/07 Page 3 of 12
4 

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS PAUL 

BALDWIN, JAMERY RAY, AND THE COUNTY OF INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

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

11. Deputy Baldwin drew his duty weapon, a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol, held it 

in one hand, and illuminated the interior of the residence with his flashlight. He walked through 

the threshold of the doorway, and past the door which was opened and on his left. As he got 

through the doorway threshold, and past the open door which had swung open and was on his 

left, he immediately turned to his left. He saw a male subject (later identified as Jeff Gilbert, the 

plaintiff in this case) lying on a bed approximately 15 feet away. Gilbert was lying on his back, 

propped up against the wall like one situates himself or herself when watching TV in bed, with 

two pillows behind his head and with his legs extended, his feet generally pointed toward 

Deputy Baldwin. The man was looking at Baldwin, and he had a bundle of blankets or covers 

over his chest area. His hands were under the blanket, and Deputy Baldwin could not see them. 

The man was fully dressed wearing a shirt, pants, and shoes. Corporal Ray was behind Deputy 

Baldwin, in the threshold of the doorway. 

12. Deputy Baldwin focused on the man in the bed. Because he could not see the 

man’s hands, and told him: “I want to see your hands; let me see your hands now!” Deputy 

Baldwin said this several times, very loudly. Baldwin was shining his flashlight in the man’s 

face, and had his service weapon pointed at him. The man ultimately responded, in a clear, 

calm, voice: “No.” 

13. Deputy Baldwin again commanded, very loudly: “I want to see your hands; I want 

to see your hands now!” The male subject said in response – “No, I have a gun.” 

14. Deputy Baldwin continued to issue the command to let him see the man’s hands, at 

which point the man started to move or pivot to his left, as if to step off the bed, and his right 

hand came up from underneath the blanket. Deputy Baldwin saw that the man was holding a 

silver or nickel-plated pistol. As the man turned off the bed, the pistol came up from under the 

covers, and the man held it straight out, as he was extending his arm toward Deputy Baldwin, 

and bringing the gun to point it directly at Baldwin. 

15. As the man began this movement, and as soon as Deputy Baldwin saw the gun 

starting to come up from under the covers, and beginning to be pointed at him, he commanded: 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01627-OWW -GSA Document 53 Filed 11/20/07 Page 4 of 12
5 

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS PAUL 

BALDWIN, JAMERY RAY, AND THE COUNTY OF INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

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

“Drop the gun! Drop the gun! Drop the gun!” As the gun became pointed directly at Deputy 

Baldwin, he feared for my life, and the life of Corporal Ray, who was now standing somewhere 

to his left, with the door blocking his (Ray’s) view of the subject. Deputy Baldwin fired his 

duty weapon at the subject, successive rounds, in controlled but rapid succession. Deputy 

Baldwin aimed at the man’s center of mass, as he had been trained to do. Deputy Baldwin fired 

until he saw that the male subject was going to the floor. It appeared to Deputy Baldwin that 

the man was no longer in possession of the gun, and was otherwise no longer an immediate 

threat to his life. At that time, Deputy Baldwin stopped firing. Deputy Baldwin fired a total of 

three rounds; his weapon was loaded with 15 rounds. 

16. As Deputy Baldwin stopped firing, the male subject slid off the bed, landed on his 

knees on the floor, and then fell forward or rolled to the floor. Corporal Ray covered Baldwin 

as he (Baldwin) holstered his weapon, went to the male subject (plaintiff Gilbert), and located 

his gun underneath him, after Baldwin rolled Gilbert over onto his back, and put a pillow under 

his head. Corporal Ray then started administering first aid. 

17. At no time did Deputy Baldwin use any more force, or fire any more rounds, than 

was necessary to prevent the subject, Gilbert, from firing his weapon at him. Under the 

circumstances of this encounter with Gilbert, in the dark room, illuminated only by flashlight, it 

was necessary for Deputy Baldwin to fire his weapon at Mr. Gilbert in order to prevent Mr. 

Gilbert from shooting Deputy Baldwin, and Corporal Ray, as well. As soon as the threat of 

death or serious bodily injury to Deputy Baldwin and/or Corporal Ray terminated, Deputy 

Baldwin immediately stopped firing and stopped all other use of force against Mr. Gilbert. 

18. Deputy Baldwin then immediately called for an ambulance and proper medical 

attention for Mr. Gilbert, and attempted to keep Mr. Gilbert calm and comfortable while 

awaiting medical personnel. During that time, Baldwin asked Gilbert “Why did you point the 

gun at me?” Mr. Gilbert responded: “That was stupid.” 

19. While waiting for the ambulance, and trying to keep Mr. Gilbert calm, Deputy 

Baldwin also asked Mr. Gilbert if this was his (Gilbert’s) house? And Gilbert said, No – it 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01627-OWW -GSA Document 53 Filed 11/20/07 Page 5 of 12
6 

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS PAUL 

BALDWIN, JAMERY RAY, AND THE COUNTY OF INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

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

wasn’t his house. Baldwin then asked what he was doing there, if it wasn’t his house? And 

Gilbert said “I’m looking for home; I’m lost; confused.” Then he (Gilbert) began to ramble on 

about Jesus and some other religious things. 

20. As Deputy Baldwin was beginning to enter the residence, Corporal Ray was just 

behind him, and restraining his K-9, Britt, who had become excited. After Corporal Ray heard 

Deputy Baldwin issue several commands to Let me see your hands! Sheriff’s Department! Let 

me see your hands! – and after Corporal Ray heard the subject refuse to show his hands, 

Corporal Ray heard the subject announce that he had a gun, and thereafter, heard Deputy 

Baldwin command loudly: “Drop the gun! Drop the gun! Drop the gun!” Deputy Baldwin’s 

“Drop the gun!” commands were followed by Deputy Baldwin firing his service weapon three 

times in rapid succession. 

21. Both Deputy Baldwin and Corporal Ray were in Deputy Sheriff Uniform, and 

were on uniformed patrol on that night. 

22. As soon as Corporal Ray cleared the doorway and could see into the room, after 

the shots were fired, he observed the male subject, Mr. Gilbert, on the edge of the bed, sitting 

somewhat sideways, with his head down, and in a position that would have allowed a kind of 

summersault off the bed. Mr. Gilbert then slid off the bed onto the floor. The subject began 

yelling: “I’m shot!” 

23. Deputy Baldwin subsequently asked Mr. Gilbert: “Why didn’t you put the gun 

down?” To this Mr. Gilbert responded: “I don’t know. I’m stupid. I didn’t want to get into 

trouble.” 

24. When Deputy Baldwin was moving Mr. Gilbert away from the bed, Corporal Ray 

saw a silver and black semi-automatic pistol lying on the floor, under the area where Mr. 

Gilbert’s stomach had been against the floor. 

25. The Inyo County Sheriff’s Department’s Use of Force Policy is set forth at Section 

307.00 of the Sheriff’s Department manual, and is entitled: “Use of Force.” A true and correct 

copy of the Department’s Use of Force Policy is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01627-OWW -GSA Document 53 Filed 11/20/07 Page 6 of 12
7 

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS PAUL 

BALDWIN, JAMERY RAY, AND THE COUNTY OF INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

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

Lieutenant Stephan J. Rogers, dated 9/23/07, submitted in this matter. Section 307.01 provides 

in pertinent part: 

A. While the following guidelines generally apply, officers 

are permitted to use any force which is reasonable to 

protect themselves and others from bodily harm while 

accomplishing a lawful police purpose. 

B. Force shall be used at an officer’s discretion: 

1. When necessary to defend themselves or others; 

 

2. To effect arrests; 

 

3. To prevent the commission of a public offense. 

C. Officers must maintain control of all 14 enforcement 

situations at all times. Suspects should not be allowed 

to gain the advantage in a physical confrontation. 

D. The use of physical force shall be restricted: 

1. To circumstances authorized by policy or law; 

 

2. To the level necessary to accomplish a law 

enforcement task. 

E. Deadly force may only be used: 

1. As a means of self defense, to defend the life of 

another Peace Officer, or to defend the life of a 

victim, witness, or the public from an immediate 

threat of death or violent injury; 

2. To prevent a crime in which human life is in 

immediate threat of death or violent injury as a 

result of the suspect’s action; 

F. Use of Force Continuum: 

1. Levels of force are used as needed, there is not a 

‘ladder’ of force that must be followed. The 

officer shall choose the available force option, 

which is reasonable and necessary to effectively 

establish control of the situation. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01627-OWW -GSA Document 53 Filed 11/20/07 Page 7 of 12
8 

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS PAUL 

BALDWIN, JAMERY RAY, AND THE COUNTY OF INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

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

26. All Inyo County Sheriff’s Deputies are trained to the “Use of Force” Policy. It is 

the policy required of all Sheriff’s Deputies when performing their duties. 

27. There is no unwritten accepted practice, no unwritten accepted custom, and no 

unwritten policy, of a standard for the implementation or use of force by Inyo County Sheriff’s 

Department Deputies other than the Department’s formal and written “Use of Force” policy. 

28. The Inyo County Sheriff’s Department’s Use of Force Policy complies with the 

standards and requirements of the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and 

Training. 

29. Both Deputy Baldwin and Corporal Ray had been trained in the California 

P.O.S.T. compliant Use of Force policy of the Inyo County Sheriff’s Department, prior to the 

events occurring January 26, 2004, involving Mr. Gilbert. 

30. On February 9, 2004, Inyo County Sheriff’s Department Lieutenant Rogers 

chaired a Shooting Review Board, which reviewed and evaluated the decisions and actions of 

Deputy Baldwin and Corporal Ray on the night of January 26, 2004, involving Gilbert. After 

reviewing the Sheriff’s Department policy on the Use of Force, the actions of Deputy Baldwin 

and Corporal Ray, and the actions of Gilbert, it was concluded by the Shooting Review Board 

that the shooting was within Department policy and consistent with current training standards 

for use of force by peace officers in California. 

31. The use of force by Deputy Baldwin on the night of January 26, 2004, in firing his 

weapon at a suspect who refused to show his concealed hands, after being repeatedly ordered 

by a uniformed Deputy Sheriff to do so, and who then presented a previously concealed pistol in 

his hand, and then refused to drop the pistol upon after being ordered to do so by the Deputy, 

and who actually extended his arm and the pistol toward the Deputy, pointing the pistol directly 

at him, constituted a justifiable use of deadly force by Deputy Baldwin to protect himself and 

others from death or serious bodily injury, and was not an excessive use of force. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01627-OWW -GSA Document 53 Filed 11/20/07 Page 8 of 12
9 

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS PAUL 

BALDWIN, JAMERY RAY, AND THE COUNTY OF INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

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

32. The use of deadly force by Deputy Baldwin was reasonable based upon his 

perception, observation, and fear for his safety and that of Cpl. Ray. Deputy Baldwin‘s use of 

deadly force comports with both state and national standards and training. 

33. Deputy Baldwin followed appropriate state law, department policies, and training 

as it relates to the use of deadly force. 

34. Deputy Baldwin fired three rounds, and he stopped firing, during the heat and 

stress of that combat situation, when he perceived that the deadly threat was terminated. 

Deputy Baldwin had an additional 12 rounds in his duty weapon that were available to him, but 

which he did not fire, because of his perception that the need to do so had ended. This is 

consistent and in compliance with Inyo County Sheriff’s Department training and policy, and 

with the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training use of force policy in 

California. 

35. Under similar circumstances, most if not all reasonable peace officers would have 

acted just as did Deputy Baldwin in firing his weapon repeatedly at a burglary suspect who was 

pointing a handgun at him. 

36. Deputy Baldwin’s use of force to stop the threat of death or serious bodily injury 

that he was facing did not call for Corporal Ray to intercede or attempt to stop Deputy Baldwin 

from protecting himself against the deadly threat being presented by Gilbert. 

37. Under similar circumstances, most if not all reasonable peace officers would have 

acted just as did Corporal Ray, in not interceding and attempting to stop Deputy Baldwin from 

protecting himself. 

38. The response, tactics, and communication displayed by the Deputies, initially, 

during, and at the conclusion of the incident, were reasonable based on officers’ perception and 

the totality of the circumstances. 

39. It was reasonable for the Deputies to approach Mr. Gilbert, who was located 

inside the residence, based on their perception, training, and experience as it relates to burglary 

suspects and the risk to public safety. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01627-OWW -GSA Document 53 Filed 11/20/07 Page 9 of 12
10 

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS PAUL 

BALDWIN, JAMERY RAY, AND THE COUNTY OF INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

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

40. The use of deadly force by Deputy Baldwin was reasonable based upon his 

perception, observation, and fear for his safety and that of Cpl. Ray. Deputy Baldwin‘s use of 

deadly force comports with both state and national standards and training. Deputy Baldwin 

followed appropriate state law, department policies, and training as it relates to the use of 

deadly force. 

41. Corporal Ray followed appropriate state law, department policies, and training as 

it relates to a deadly force encounter and declining to intercede to stop Deputy Baldwin from 

protecting himself. 

42. Nothing in this incident supports a finding or a claimed existence of any custom, 

policy, or practice that encourages or condones the use of excessive force by members of the 

Inyo County Sheriff’s Department. 

43. Nothing in this incident supports a propensity for violence on the part of Deputy 

Baldwin or Corporal Ray that contributed to the decision to use deadly force against Gilbert. 

44. As a result of the following, Mr. Gilbert posed an immediate and deadly threat to 

the Deputies because of his actions: 

a. According to police reports and statements, Gilbert refused to comply with 

or surrender to both Deputy Baldwin’s and Cpl. Ray’s simple and uncomplicated commands. 

b. Instead, Gilbert verbally refused to come out, which forced the Deputies to 

enter the residence. 

c. Additionally, when confronted inside the residence, Gilbert refused to show 

his hands, which were concealed under a blanket. 

d. When Gilbert removed his hands from the blanket, he had a handgun in his 

right hand, and proceeded to extend his arm and point the weapon directly at Deputy Baldwin in 

a life-threatening manner. 

e. Gilbert refused to drop the handgun when ordered to do so by Deputy 

Baldwin. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01627-OWW -GSA Document 53 Filed 11/20/07 Page 10 of 12
11 

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS PAUL 

BALDWIN, JAMERY RAY, AND THE COUNTY OF INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

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

f. It was obvious that Gilbert posed an immediate and deadly threat to the 

Deputies because of his actions. 

g. The decision not to release the canine into the residence, after a person 

ultimately called out from inside, was reasonable for several reasons, including without limit that 

it was unknown whether the person who called out was ill, injured, handicapped, simply 

intoxicated, or otherwise incapacitated. 

45. It is reasonable to assess and assume that Gilbert posed an imminent threat to both 

the Deputies and the community based on Gilbert’s unauthorized entry into someone else’s 

residence and the fact he was armed with a handgun. 

46. This incident had a significant degree of uncertainty and was obviously tense and 

rapidly changing. In a matter of seconds, the seriousness of the crime escalated from burglary, 

up to and including brandishing a firearm, and assault on a police officer with a handgun. 

47. There is clear evidence that Gilbert posed a significant threat to the Deputies, 

which culminated in Gilbert displaying and pointing his handgun at Deputy Baldwin in a lifethreatening manner. At the same time, there is no evidence that supports the Deputies engaged 

in excessive force. 

48. The response and action of both Deputy Baldwin and Corporal Ray was 

appropriate and reasonable given the information and circumstances. It was obvious that 

Gilbert posed an immediate and deadly threat to the Deputies because of his actions. 

49. The use of deadly force against Gilbert by Deputy Baldwin comports with the 

training, policies, and practices commonly recognized by the law enforcement community. 

50. Such circumstances, if repeated, would predictably cause trained law enforcement 

personnel to respond and act in the same manner, regardless of jurisdiction or agency. 

51. The handgun that Gilbert admits to pointing at Deputy Baldwin is a .380 caliber 

Bersa Thunder semi-automatic pistol. It was recovered at the scene of the shooting on the night 

of the shooting. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01627-OWW -GSA Document 53 Filed 11/20/07 Page 11 of 12
12 

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS PAUL 

BALDWIN, JAMERY RAY, AND THE COUNTY OF INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

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

52. A photograph taken of Gilbert’s gun in the condition in which it was recovered, 

shows that the hammer was back and the safety in the off position. There was a live round in 

the chamber, along with a fully loaded 7-round magazine. The weapon was fully ready to fire, 

merely by applying light pressure to the trigger. 

53. Gilbert was convicted by plea of Assault on a Police Officer with a Deadly 

Weapon, namely, a firearm, in violation of California Penal Code Section 245(d)(2), as a result 

of the events of January 26, 2004. Gilbert was sentenced to eight years in State Prison as a 

result of that conviction. 

54. On the night of January 26, 2004, Mr. Gilbert made the conscious and deliberate 

decision to use his pistol to provoke the Inyo County Deputy Sheriffs into fearing for their life, 

and into therefore shooting and killing him (Mr. Gilbert), as a form of suicide. 

55. Mr. Gilbert had been having suicidal thoughts for several months prior to January 

26, 2004, and on more than 50 occasions contemplated killing himself, including putting his 

pistol in his mouth, and otherwise up to his head. 

56. Gilbert did not actually pull the trigger and shoot himself was because he was 

afraid that the single self-inflicted gunshot would he could fire might not be enough to actually 

kill him, and he did not want to live in some kind of “vegetable” state, in the event her survived 

the single shot he could fire himself. 

Based on all of the pleadings and files in this matter, and based upon the foregoing 

findings. and the Court’s Memorandum of Decision herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

the motion for summary judgment by each of defendants PAUL BALDWIN, JAMERY RAY, 

and the COUNTY OF INYO/INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, is GRANTED. 

Dated: ____November 17, 2007____ 

_/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

OLIVER W. WANGER 

United States District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01627-OWW -GSA Document 53 Filed 11/20/07 Page 12 of 12