Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05751/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05751-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIMBERLY MARIE CURIEL, FREDERICK

MICHAEL CURIEL, M. T. C., a minor, by and

through her guardian ad litem Kimberly Marie

Curiel, T. A. C., a minor, by an through her

guardian ad litem Kimberly Marie Curiel, J. M.

C., a minor, by and through her guardian ad

litem Kimberly Marie Curiel, HAZEL ANNE

McCLURE, MICHAEL JASON SIKKEMA,

D. A. M. S., a minor, by and through his

guardian ad litem Hazel Anne McClure, C. R.

M. S., a minor, by and through her guardian ad

litem Kimberly Marie Curiel,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA,

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT SERGEANTS J. MAHONEY

and K. DALY, sued in their individual

capacities and as employees of Contra Costa

County, CONTR COSTA COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT DETECTIVES

JASON BARNES, SHAWN PATE, CLARK

CARY GOLBERG, MOORE, UYEDA, AND

VAN ZELF, sued in their individual capacities

and as employees of Contra Costa County,

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPUTIES ARANDA AND HADLEY, sued

in their individual capacities and as employees

of Contra Costa County, SHERIFF WARREN

RUPF, CALIFORNIA AND DOES ONE

through ONE HUNDRED, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-05751 WHA

ORDER REQUESTING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Case 3:06-cv-05751-WHA Document 55 Filed 08/03/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

After the hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court wishes to

have parties submit supplemental briefing. Parties should address the question of whether

taking each of the three individual plaintiffs to the Field Operations Bureau for questioning or

to give statements violated their Fourth Amendment rights. Specifically, they should address

whether the three plaintiffs went voluntarily, and whether there are genuine triable issues of fact

on that point. Parties should not limit themselves to evidence in their favor, and should address

countervailing evidence. Evidence, however, should be limited to that which has already been

submitted as part of the record on summary judgment. Citations to relevant Supreme Court and

Ninth Circuit decisions are also requested. This is not an opportunity for parties to re-argue

other issues in this motion; they must confine themselves to the above-stated issue.

Submissions should be no more than ten double-spaced pages in length with appropriate

font and margins. They should be received no later than AUGUST 10, 2007, AT NOON. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05751-WHA Document 55 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2