Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01550/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01550-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD WARKENTINE, DANIEL 

TANKERSLEY, 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

HECTOR J. SORIA, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01550-MJS 

NOTICE OF COURT’S INTENT TO 

SUMMARILY ADJUDICATE ISSUES 

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE 56(f)

 AND

ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR 

BRIEFING THEREON

TEN (10) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiffs initiated this action September 25, 2013. They are proceeding on a 

second amended complaint filed June 2, 2014. Following disposition of the parties’ 

cross-motions for summary judgment, Plaintiffs now proceed with their Fourth 

Amendment Search and Seizure and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claims, as 

set forth in the Court’s January 21, 2016, Order. The remaining issues are more fully 

delineated in the February 1, 2016, Pretrial Order. (ECF No. 114.) 

Upon further consideration of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, 

the facts no longer in dispute, and discussion with counsel at the January 29, 2016 

pretrial conference, it appears that certain issues may yet be summarily resolved even 

though no motion for summary adjudication has been made on those specific issues.

Case 1:13-cv-01550-MJS Document 115 Filed 02/02/16 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

“District courts unquestionably possess the power to enter summary judgment 

sua sponte, even on the eve of trial.” Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 971 

(9th Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Connett, 685 F.2d 309, 312 (9th 

Cir. 1982) (holding that district courts may grant summary judgment sua sponte if the 

parties have had a “full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issues”). Rule 56(f) 

authorizes the Court to enter judgment sua sponte after giving notice and a reasonable 

time to respond. The reasonableness of the notice “‘implies adequate time to develop 

the facts on which the litigant will depend to oppose summary judgment.’” Norse, 629 

F.3d at 972 (quoting Portsmouth Square, Inc. v. S'holders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 

866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

Pursuant to these powers, the Court finds it prudent to invite the parties to submit 

argument and corresponding citation to legal authority as to why summary judgment 

should not be entered as follows: 

1. For Plaintiffs on their Fourth Amendment seizure claim relating to the 

unfenced parcel (APN 013-152-27s).

2. For Defendants on their qualified immunity defense on Plaintiffs’ postdeprivation procedural and substantive due process claims. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall submit briefs within 

ten (10) days addressing the issues identified above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01550-MJS Document 115 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 2