Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00396/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00396-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

MATTHEW MONTAGUE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, KERN COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; DEPUTY

RICHARD GARRETT; AND DEPUTY J.

RUPE,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-0396 OWW TAG

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 4/16/07

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 4/30/07

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 5/15/07

Settlement Conference Date:

4/19/07 10:00 Bakersfield

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 7/30/07 11:00 Ctrm.

3

Trial Date: 8/28/07 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-8 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

August 16, 2006.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Joseph H. Low, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Jennifer L. Thurston, Esq., appeared on behalf of

Defendants. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiff, Matthew Montague’s constitutional rights

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 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

were violated on January 22, 2005, when an employee of Defendant

County of Kern, Deputy Richard Garrett, who was employed by the

Kern County sheriff’s Department, attacked Plaintiff on the

street and proceeded to assault and batter Plaintiff forcefully

and without just cause, resulting in injury and damages to

Plaintiff. Deputy J. Rupe, also an employee of Defendant County

of Kern, Deputy Richard Garrett, and employed by the Kern County

Sheriff’s Department, who was also present, allowed this to occur

and did nothing to intervene.

2. On January 21, 2005, Plaintiff was visiting a friend,

Liz Anderson, at her home located at 3303 Sierra Highway, #58, in

Rosamond, California 93560. Plaintiff arrived about 8:00 p.m. or

9:00 p.m. that evening.

3. Later that evening Ms. Anderson received a telephone

call from a 911 dispatcher/operator. Ms. Anderson then advised

Plaintiff, Matthew Montague, that the 911 operator/dispatcher had

advised her that someone had called 911 to report domestic

violence. the operator/dispatcher asked Ms. Anderson if it was

she, and Ms. Anderson advised the caller that it was not.

4. The operator advised Ms. Anderson that she could hear a

man’s voice in the background. Ms. Anderson advised the 911

dispatcher/operator that there was only one man in the room and

then handed the telephone to Plaintiff, Matthew Montague, who

then informed the operator/dispatcher that there was no problem

and that neither of them had called 911. Plaintiff and Ms.

Anderson then went outside where Plaintiff saw a police car

approaching and went inside the house. Ms. Anderson told the

officers “There is no problem here.”

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 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

5. Plaintiff decided to go home and was walking north on

Sierra Highway just north of Rosamond Boulevard, Rosamond, CA,

while talking on his cellular telephone to a friend to request a

ride home.

6. At that point, a Kern County Sheriff’s vehicle drove

past Plaintiff, Matthew Montague, and did a U turn to face

Plaintiff. There were two officers in the Sheriff’s vehicle,

Deputy Richard Garrett and Deputy J. Rupe.

7. Deputy J. Rupe then said to Plaintiff, “Hey, come

here.” When Plaintiff heard this, he turned around, put his

hands in the air and said, “Yes, sir, what’s the problem?”

8. However, as Plaintiff faced the deputy who had spoken

to him, Kern County Sheriff Deputy Richard Garrett, rushed at

Plaintiff, spun him around, and tackled him, knocking him to the

ground. While Plaintiff was on the ground, Deputy Garrett was on

top of Plaintiff, hitting him in the kidney area and stating,

“Stop resisting.” Plaintiff told Deputy Garrett “I’m not

resisting. Just tell me what you want me to do.” At no time did

Plaintiff attempt to flee.

9. Deputy Garrett then handcuffed Plaintiff, picked him up

by his shirt and slammed him over the squad car and searched him. 

He was then placed into the back of the squad car and read his

Miranda rights. At no time did Deputy Rupe, who was with Deputy

Garrett, intervene to assist Plaintiff or to interfere with the

unjustified brutality inflicted by Deputy Garrett upon Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff sat in the back of the squad car for about thirty

minutes. While he was seated there, he advised the deputies that

he was injured and requested medical care. However, he did not

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 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

receive it. Plaintiff informed the officers that he was an

insulin dependent diabetic and also informed both officers that

he though that his arm was broken.

10. Deputy Garrett then took Plaintiff to the Rosamond

substation. When Plaintiff asked Defendant, Deputy Garrett what

the charge was, Deputy Garrett told him “Resisting arrest.”

11. At the substation, the Deputies cleaned Plaintiff’s

wounds and advised Plaintiff to go to the bathroom and clean the

rest of the blood off himself.

12. Deputy Garrett than placed Plaintiff in an

interrogation room for approximately thirty minutes. Plaintiff

again requested medical attention but did not receive it.

13. Plaintiff thereafter was released with no charges filed

against him. Kern County Sheriff J. Rupe then took Plaintiff to

the initial area on Sierra Highway where Plaintiff was attacked

and arrested by the officers.

14. Deputy Richard Garrett and Deputy J. Rupe were

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff Matthew Montague’s serious

medical needs in violation of Plaintiff Matthew Montague’s right

to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

15. Officer J. Rupe, who was present during the

aforementioned unprovoked beating and use of excessive force

against Plaintiff by Office Richard Garrett, stood by and failed

to intervene and prevent or stop any of Officer Garrett’s actions

against Plaintiff, thereby also violating Plaintiff’s right to

due process of law by failing to prohibit or intervene in Officer

Richard Garrett’s unprovoked beating and use of excessive force.

///

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 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

Defendant’s Contentions

1. On January 25, 2005, the 911 emergency operator

received a call from the home of Elizabeth Anderson in Rosamond,

California. Although the call was quickly disconnected, the

operator heard statements made by the Plaintiff that indicated

that acts of violence may be happening in the home. When the

operator called the home, she spoke to Elizabeth Anderson who

denied that she placed the call. The operator spoke also to

Plaintiff who denied he had placed the earlier call and who gave

a false name. Still uncertain about what was happening in the

home, the operator dispatched deputies to the home.

2. when the deputies arrived at the home, Plaintiff left

his car at the home and fled. Elizabeth Anderson told deputies

that she and Plaintiff had been drinking alcoholic beverages in

the home and that she believed that Plaintiff fled due to being

on probation or parole. The Deputies gave chase. The Deputies

yelled numerous commands to Plaintiff to stop. Nevertheless,

Plaintiff can from the Deputies and scaled a fence in an apparent

attempt to avoid apprehension.

3. Eventually the Deputies caught Plaintiff and were

required to place him in a control hold to prevent further

flight. In doing so, Plaintiff was placed on the gravel ground

and suffered a cut to his arm. At the substation, the Deputies

provided first aid and Plaintiff refused the additional offer of

medical aid. Although Plaintiff told deputies that he ran

because he believed that he had an outstanding arrest warrant,

the deputies did not find record of an outstanding arrest warrant

in the computer system. However, in fact, by this date a Los

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 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

Angeles Superior Court had issued an outstanding arrest warrant

although it was not reflected on Kern’s computer system. As a

result, the deputies released Plaintiff without filing any

charges.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not anticipate filing any amendments to

the pleadings at this time. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Plaintiff was detained on January 22, 2005, but

was released without charges being filed.

2. On January 22, 2005, a call was placed to the 911

emergency operator from the home of Elizabeth Anderson.

3. At the time of the emergency 911 call, Plaintiff

was present at the home with Elizabeth Anderson.

4. On January 18, 2005, a criminal complaint was

filed against Plaintiff in Los Angeles County Superior Court for

impersonating a law enforcement officer and for using offensive

words in public. 

5. On January 18, 2005, the Los Angeles County

Superior Court issued an arrest warrant for Plaintiff.

6. On July 5, 2005, Plaintiff was convicted of

impersonating a law enforcement officer.

7. On March 6, 2001, Plaintiff was convicted of

making a false report to a law enforcement officer that a felony

had been committed.

///

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 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

B. Contested Facts.

1. Whether Plaintiff refused to comply with the

instructions given by deputies to stop fleeing on January 22,

2005.

2. Whether Plaintiff fled from deputies.

3. Whether Plaintiff made the 911 emergency call on

January 2, 2005.

4. Whether deputies Garrett or Rupe used excessive

force on Plaintiff to detain him.

5. Whether a reasonably well-trailed officer in

California would have used the force the individual Defendants

used to apprehend Plaintiff.

6. Whether the County of Kern maintained or condoned

an unconstitutional policy or custom that caused the damages of

which Plaintiff complains.

7. Whether Deputy Garrett was justified in using

force to apprehend Plaintiff.

8. Whether Deputy Rupe was justified in using force

to apprehend Plaintiff.

9. Whether Deputy Richard Garrett and Deputy J. Rupe

were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs in

violation of Plaintiff’s right to due process of law as

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

10. Whether Plaintiff had a serious medical need.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 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

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

3. The parties agree that for supplemental claims, 

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

of decision. 

B. Contested. 

1. Whether unlawful force was used on Plaintiff.

2. Whether the individual Defendant are entitled to

qualified immunity. 

3. Whether Plaintiff’s Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment

rights were violated by Defendants. 

4. Whether the County of Kern has an unconstitutional

custom or policy that caused Plaintiff’s alleged damages.

5. Whether the individual Defendants were justified

in using force during Plaintiff’s arrest. 

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 are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before April 16, 2007.

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 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

2. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before February 15, 2007. Any

supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before March

15, 2007. 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 not

disclosed pursuant to this order.

3. 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 30, 2007, and

heard on June 1, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge

Teresa A. Goldner in Bakersfield, California. 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 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

filed no later than May 15, 2007, and will be heard on June 18,

2007, 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 30, 2007, 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 

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 28, 2007, 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. 8 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 April 19,

2007, at 10:00 a.m. in Bakersfield, California, before the

Honorable Teresa A. Goldner, United States Magistrate Judge. 

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 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

11

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

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: 

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 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

12

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.

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 trial should be phased. The

first phase shall address liability issues including the nature

and extent of injuries resulting from any alleged violation of

civil rights. The second phase before the same jury shall

consider the Monell issue. The third phase shall consider the

amount, if any, of punitive damages. 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 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

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. 

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, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00396-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 08/21/06 Page 13 of 13