Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01258/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01258-6/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

W. Eric Hulstedt, permanent guardian

and permanent conservator of David

Hulstedt, an adult, et al., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Scottsdale, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1258-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc.

265), Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 271), and Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Certification of Issue for Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 334).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that oral argument on these motions is set for March

14, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 602, Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Federal Courthouse,

401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order serves to inform the parties as to which

issues are to be the subject of oral argument.

The primary interest of the Court in having oral argument is to discuss particular

elements of the Graham test and associated qualified immunity issues with regards to Count

One and Count Two. Therefore, the parties should be prepared to discuss 1) any crime or

crimes committed by David Hulstedt and the severity of those crimes, 2) the immediacy and

Case 2:09-cv-01258-GMS Document 339 Filed 03/02/12 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 -

the nature of the threat posed by David Hulstedt to himself and/or others, 3) whether David

Hulstedt was resisting arrest or attempting to escape, and if so, how.

The parties should also be prepared to discuss whether officers must consider the risk

of harm using force presents to third parties under a Graham analysis, and if so, whether this

principle was “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity in November of

2008. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). The Court asks the parties to be

prepared to discuss the following cases: Boyd v. Benton Cty., 374 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2004),

Haugen v. Brosseau, 339 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2003) (overruled on qualified immunity grounds

by Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004)), Vaughan v. Cox, 343 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir.

2003), Dietzman v. City of Homer, 2010 WL 4684043 (D. Alaska Nov. 17, 2010), and Glenn

v. Washington Cty., ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 6760348 (Dec. 27, 2011).

The treatment of David after he was shot appears also subject to an analysis under

Graham. The parties should therefore be prepared to discuss the precise force used against

David, the government’s interest in using that force, and whether the interest justified the

force used. Should either party claim that Officer Fellows and Officer Garcia were unaware

of the fact that they were injuring David, they should be prepared to discuss “whether a

reasonable officer would have or should have accurately perceived that fact.” Torres v. City

of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original). On the question of

qualified immunity for Count Two, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether Burnett

v. Bottoms, 368 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1041 (D. Ariz. 2005) clearly establishes any principle of

law with regard to officers’ duties when transporting prisoners.

Parties are free to discuss any other issues they see fit to address, including the motion

for certification, but the Court notes that the time of the hearing is limited and the above

issues are of principal concern to it. Each party will be given thirty (30) minutes to discuss

the above questions.

DATED this 2nd day of March, 2012.

Case 2:09-cv-01258-GMS Document 339 Filed 03/02/12 Page 2 of 2