Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02121/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02121-5/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 08cv2121 BTM(MDD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN MURRAY,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08cv2121 BTM(MDD)

ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

v. AND PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULE

CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.

Defendants.

A. Trial and Related Dates

The Court held a pretrial conference on March 29, 2011. As discussed during the

conference, trial is set for October 11, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. The final pretrial conference shall

take place on September 21, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. The Court and counsel shall go over

proposed jury instructions and verdict forms at that time. The proposed pretrial order shall

be filed on or before April 18, 2011. Along with the proposed pretrial order, the parties may

file simultaneous briefs regarding the causes of action to be tried. Plaintiff may also file a

motion to amend his complaint to add a cause of action for ratification and/or any other cause

of action or theory he wishes to present at trial. Any opposition to such motion to amend is

due on or before April 25, 2011. Any reply is due on or before May 2, 2011. The motion is

scheduled for hearing on May 6, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. Unless otherwise directed by the Court,

there shall be no oral argument and no personal appearances are necessary. 

Case 3:08-cv-02121-BTM-MDD Document 107 Filed 04/01/11 Page 1 of 3
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 08cv2121 BTM(MDD)

At the pretrial conference, the Court indicated that prejudice was the primary issue

that would determine whether Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint. However,

the Court neglected to mention that Defendants may also argue that it would be futile for

Plaintiff to amend his complaint. 

If Plaintiff wishes to add a ratification claim, Plaintiff must reveal the factual basis for

his claim. The Court notes that “[a] mere failure to overrule a subordinate’s actions, without

more, is insufficient to support a § 1983 claim.” Lytle v. Carl, 382 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir.

2004). The policymaker must have knowledge of the constitutional violation and must make

a “conscious, affirmative choice” to ratify the conduct at issue. Id.; Haugen v. Brosseau, 351

F.3d 372, 393 (9th Cir. 2003) overruled on other grounds by Brousseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S.

194 (2004). There must be “something more” than a single failure to discipline or the fact

that a policymaker concluded that the defendant officer’s actions were in keeping with the

applicable policies and procedures. Kanae v. Hodson, 294 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1191 (D.

Hawaii 2003). See also Peterson v. City of Forth Worth Texas, 588 F.3d 838, 848 (5th Cir.

2009) (holding that there was no ratification of use of excessive force where the Chief of

Police determined after investigation that the officers complied with department policies);

Santiago v. Fenton, 891 F.2d 373, 382 (1st Cir. 1989) (“As we have indicated before, we

cannot hold that the failure of a police department to discipline in a specific instance is an

adequate basis for municipal liability under Monell.”).

B. Motions in Limine

Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-4 are not opposed and are GRANTED without

prejudice.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 is GRANTED without prejudice.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 is GRANTED without prejudice.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5 is GRANTED without prejudice.

Case 3:08-cv-02121-BTM-MDD Document 107 Filed 04/01/11 Page 2 of 3
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 08cv2121 BTM(MDD)

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6 is DENIED without prejudice. It appears that

emotional distress damages are available in a § 1983 suit for unconstitutional deprivation of

property. See Knudson v. City of Ellenburg, 832 F.2d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining

that compensable damages for deprivation of a property interest without procedural due

process include emotional distress and the recovery of the value of the plaintiff’s property);

Anderson v. Central Point School Dist. No. 6, 746 F.2d 505, 506 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[W]here

injury such as mental and emotional distress is caused by the constitutional violation, that

injury is compensable under section 1983.”). Defendants erroneously focus on “property

damage” as opposed to the violation of a constitutional right.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7 is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8 is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 9 is GRANTED. Under Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(1)(A)(iii), initial disclosures must include a “computation of each category of damages

claimed by the disclosing party.” A party who has made disclosure under Rule 26(a) must

supplement or correct its disclosure or response “in a timely manner if the party learns that

in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the

additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties

during the discovery process or in writing.” It appears that Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule

26 with respect to his valuation of the seized bottle of wine, padre ticket stubs, and cup.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 10 is GRANTED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 1, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02121-BTM-MDD Document 107 Filed 04/01/11 Page 3 of 3