Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03744/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03744-14/pdf.json

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

---

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

The motion was granted as it pertained to plaintiff’s claims against defendants other

than Cannedy and Sobek.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL WILLINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C 06-3744 MMC

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR

LEAVE TO SET HEARING FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is defendants Greg Cannedy (“Cannedy”) and Mike Sobek’s

(“Sobek”) “Application for Leave to Set Hearing for Summary Judgment,” filed February 29,

2008, by which defendants seek leave to have their “Motion for Summary Judgment or, in

the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues” set for hearing on the Court’s April 11,

2008 calendar. Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, was served with the application, but has not

filed opposition or any other response thereto.

The December 4, 2007 deadline to file dispositive motions has passed. On

December 4, 2007, before the deadline had passed, Cannedy and Sobek did file a motion

for summary judgment, which motion was denied on all grounds, including qualified

immunity.1

 Although said defendants have submitted new evidence in support of their

Case 3:06-cv-03744-MMC Document 114 Filed 03/19/08 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

Defendants do not contend plaintiff’s allegations fail to implicate any clearly

established Fourth Amendment rights.

2

argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity, the record before the Court reflects a

factual dispute as to at least one of the factual underpinnings of defendants’ immunity

defense. In particular, plaintiff has submitted evidence, in opposition to defendants’ prior

motion for summary judgment, (see Pl.’s Ex. 5 (affidavit of Veronica Willingham)), that

plaintiff was not intoxicated at the time of his arrest for public intoxication, let alone

intoxicated to such a degree that he was “unable to exercise care for his . . . own safety or

the safety of others.” See Cal. Penal Code § 647(f). Where a triable issue of fact exists as

to whether a defendant violated a plaintiff’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights,2

the question of qualified immunity cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment;

“rather [it is] a question of fact best resolved by a jury.” See Wilkins v. City of Oakland, 350

F. 3d 949, 955-56 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 811 (2004).

Consequently, although the trial recently was continued to May 27, 2008, and,

ordinarily, a defendant’s request for qualified immunity should be considered before trial,

see Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001) (holding “[w]here the defendant seeks

qualified immunity, a ruling on that issue should be made early in the proceedings so that

the costs and expenses of trial are avoided where the defense is dispositive”), defendants

have failed to show good cause exists to raise again the issues previously raised in their

earlier-filed motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, defendant’s application is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03744-MMC Document 114 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 2