Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00102/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00102-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON TORRES,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF KINGS, CALIFORNIA,

ALAN McCLAIN, SHERIFF, COUNTY OF

KINGS, CALIFORNIA and WARREN

PARKER,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-00102 OWW LJO

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 6/1/07

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 6/15/07

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 6/29/07

Settlement Conference Date:

6/12/07 9:00 Ctrm. 8

Pre-Trial Conference Date:

9/17/07 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 11/6/07 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-5 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

June 28, 2006.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

William A. Romaine, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. 

Weakley, Ratliff, Arendt & McGuire, LLP by James J. Arendt,

Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiff Jason Torres contends the following: 

Case 1:06-cv-00102-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 10
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

2. On May 17, 2004, Plaintiff was a minor in residence at

401 East Fresno Street, Avenal, California. He was physically

removed from his residence and thereafter instructed by Kings

County Sheriff’s officers that he could not enter his residence

because they were attempting to serve a warrant on the residence. 

Plaintiff understood that this order was an unlawful order and

that he could remain in the residence without interfering in any

manner with any lawful operations then and there being conducted

by law enforcement officers. After being removed physically,

Plaintiff obeyed the officers and did not return to the

residence, but he expressed very clearly that he did not agree

with the officer’s conduct and expressed his concern that this

conduct was unlawful. Kings County Sheriff’s Deputy Parker then

arrested Plaintiff and took him into custody for violation of

California Penal Code Section 148 which criminalizes resisting or

obstructing officers in the discharge of a lawful duty. This

arrest by Kings County Sheriff’s Deputy Parker, under color of

California law, was the result of a custom, policy, and/or

practice of Kings County Sheriff’s Department to arrest

individuals who do not obey orders of the Kings County Sheriff’s

Department, whether or not such orders are lawful. In addition,

Kings County Deputy parker made the decision to arrest Plaintiff

because of Plaintiff’s expression of his beliefs that law

enforcement was then and there engaged in unlawful conduct.

3. Plaintiff was not guilty of violating Penal Code § 148

because the order given to Plaintiff was not a lawful order, nor

did Plaintiff’s entry into his own residence interfere in any

manner with any lawful operation then and there being conducted

Case 1:06-cv-00102-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 06/30/06 Page 2 of 10
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

by the Kings County Sheriff’s Department, or any other law

enforcement agency.

4. Defendants contend that on Monday, May 17, 2004, at

approximately 2:40 p.m., law enforcement officers responded to

401 E. Fresno Street, Avenal, in an attempt to locate a fleeing

parolee. During the search of the house, officers ordered

Plaintiff Torres, on three separate occasions, to wait outside

the house. Plaintiff Torres was 17 years of age at the time. 

Plaintiff Torres refused the officers’ commands. For his own

safety, Plaintiff Torres was physically removed from the

residence by Defendant Parker. Plaintiff Torres became verbally

abusive but remained outside.

5. Plaintiff Torres was subsequently arrested on three

counts of resisting or obstructing a peace officer in the course

of their duties (Penal Code § 148(a)(1)) and booked into Kings

County Juvenile Hall.

6. Probable cause to arrest a person exists when, under

the totality of the circumstances known to the arresting officer,

a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair

probability that the individual had committed a crime. Barlow v.

Ground, 943 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1991).

7. Defendants contend that there was sufficient probable

cause to arrest Plaintiff for interfering and obstructing a peace

officer in the course of his or her duties.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not anticipate filing any amendments to

the pleadings at this time. 

2. The parties agree that Alan McClain, Sheriff of

Case 1:06-cv-00102-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 06/30/06 Page 3 of 10
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

the County of Kings, was not the duly appointed and acting

Sheriff at the time of the incidents in this case and,

accordingly, agree that Alan McClain shall be dismissed from this

action as a Defendant, without prejudice.

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. On May 17, 2004, law enforcement officers were

searching for a wanted parolee at 401 East Fresno Street, Avenal. 

2. Plaintiff Torres was present during all or a

portion of the search.

3. Plaintiff Torres was arrested on three counts of

violations of Penal Code § 148(a)(1).

4. Plaintiff Torres was a juvenile at the time of

this incident. 

5. Defendant Parker, at all times relevant, was a

deputy sheriff employed by the Kings County Sheriff’s Department

and acting under color of law. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. All remaining facts are contested. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

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

U.S.C. § 1983 et seq. 

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

B. Contested. 

1. Whether the conduct of any Defendant violated

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. 

Case 1:06-cv-00102-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 06/30/06 Page 4 of 10
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

2. Whether or not any Defendant is entitled to good

faith qualified immunity.

3. Whether any Defendant unlawfully arrested

Plaintiff Torres pursuant to an existing custom, policy or

practice.

4. Whether Defendant Parker acted with bad faith,

malice or ill-will.

5. The nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injury and

damages of any, caused by any violation of his Constitutional

rights by any Defendant. 

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 June 1, 2007.

2. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before April 13, 2007. Any

supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before May 14,

2007. The parties will comply with the provisions of Federal

Case 1:06-cv-00102-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 06/30/06 Page 5 of 10
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

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 June 15, 2007, and

heard on July 20, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge

Lawrence J. O’Neill in Courtroom 8. 

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

filed no later than June 29, 2007, and will be heard on August 6,

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. 

Case 1:06-cv-00102-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 06/30/06 Page 6 of 10
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

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. September 17, 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. November 6, 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. 5 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 June 12, 2007,

at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8 before the Honorable Lawrence J.

O’Neill, United States Magistrate Judge. 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00102-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 06/30/06 Page 7 of 10
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

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: 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00102-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 06/30/06 Page 8 of 10
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

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 subject of punitive damages,

as to amount, if any, shall be tried in a second phase after any

finding of liability and entitlement to punitive damages and

compensatory damages. The trial shall be continuous before the

same jury. The parties also agree that the issue of Monell

liability shall be bifurcated. The first phase of the case

shall address liability issues of the Plaintiff as against all

Defendants; the second phase shall address Monell issues; and the

third phase shall address the amount, if any, of punitive

damages, all before the same jury.

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-00102-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 06/30/06 Page 9 of 10
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

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: June 28, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00102-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 06/30/06 Page 10 of 10