Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02691/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02691-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOFIA DAVILA; RUBI PASTORA,

JEANETTE ECHEVERRIA;

GUILLERMO DAVILA; MAYRA

SANDOVAL; EDWIN JAVIER 

DAVILA; JUAN DAVILA; and

MAYLIN DAVILA,

NO. CIV. S-06-2691 LKK/EFB

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN; O R D E R

CITY OF TRACY; and DOES

1 through 50,

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court is defendants County of San Joaquin

and Kendrick’s motion to stay pending appeal and defendants City

of Tracy, Flores, and Harries’ motion to enter final judgment. For

the reasons stated herein, the court grants the motion for a stay

and denies the motion to enter partial final judgment. 

I. BACKGROUND AND FACTS

This action was brought by the family of decedent Guillermo

Davila, who died shortly after his release from the San Joaquin

Case 2:06-cv-02691-LKK -EFB Document 133 Filed 09/26/08 Page 1 of 7
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

2

County jail. See Order, August, 20, 2008, at 1. The plaintiffs

allege that defendants violated their constitutionally protected

familial rights by causing the decedent’s death. Id. Defendants

Flores and Harries, officers of the City of Tracy Police

Department, arrested the decedent on March 4, 2006 for trespass and

public intoxication. Id. at 2-3. Pursuant to department policy,

they brought him to the San Joaquin County jail. Id. at 3. 

At the jail, defendant officer Kendrick conducted the

decedent’s pre-booking process, which included a medical screening.

Id. at 5-6. After detaining decedent for six hours, jail personnel

released him. Id. at 7. Two days later, the decedent’s body was

found outdoors, approximately one mile from the jail. Id. at 9.

Plaintiffs brought the present suit, alleging that defendants

unlawfully caused the death of decedent, violating plaintiffs’

familial rights.

On August 20, 2008, the court granted summary judgment in

favor of defendants City of Tracy, Flores, and Harries, on the

grounds that there was insufficient evidence that the individual

officers acted with deliberate indifference to the decedent’s

medical needs nor that the officers’ acts were the proximate cause

of his death. Id. at 17-19. Additionally, the City of Flores

defendants were protected by statutory immunity against plaintiffs’

state law claims. Id. at 19. The court denied summary judgment to

defendants Kendrick and County of San Joaquin, holding, inter alia,

that defendant Kendrick was not entitled to qualified immunity on

plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. Id.

Case 2:06-cv-02691-LKK -EFB Document 133 Filed 09/26/08 Page 2 of 7
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

3

II. STANDARDS

A. Standard for a Stay

A district court has discretion to stay its order, pending

appeal, upon consideration of, “(1) whether the stay applicant has

made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits;

(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a

stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure

the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the

public interest lies.” Hilton v.Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776

(1987). The Ninth Circuit conceives this standard as “two

interrelated legal tests” operating along a continuum. Lopez v.

Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). At one end of the

continuum, the moving party may succeed if it shows that there is

a probability of success on the merits as well as a possibility of

irreparable injury. Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n. v. City and

County of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2008).

At the other end, the moving party may succeed if it shows that it

has raised “serious legal questions” and that “the balance of

hardships tips sharply in its favor.” Id. at 1116 (quoting Lopez,

713 F.2d at 1435). Finally, the district court must consider the

public interest implicated by the grant of the stay; this

consideration is distinct from the harm to the parties in the

court’s grant or denial of a stay. Natural Resource Defense

Council, Inc. v. Winter, 502 F.3d 859, 863-64 (9th Cir. 2007). 

B. Standard for Entry of Partial Final Judgment

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), a court may

Case 2:06-cv-02691-LKK -EFB Document 133 Filed 09/26/08 Page 3 of 7
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

4

entire final judgment on some of the claims “upon an express

determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an

express direction for the entry of judgment.” Entry of partial

final judgment is proper when there has been “ultimate disposition

of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims

action.” Sears, Robuck, & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436 (1956).

The court should also consider whether failure to enter judgment

could result in piecemeal appellate review of the case. See Frank

Briscoe Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414 (9th Cir. 1985).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Stay

In order to succeed in their motion, defendants Kendrick and

County of San Joaquin must show at least the potential for success

on the merits of their appeal. See Golden Gate, 512 F.3d at 1115-

16; Lopez, 713 F.2d at 1435. In other words, if the defendants have

no possibility of obtaining a favorable ruling in the appellate

court, a stay is improper. Here, the defendants have met their

burden to show that they present at least “serious legal questions”

in their appeal.

Preliminarily, the court’s order denying defendants motion for

summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity is

appealable. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).

Defendants also show a fair likelihood of success on the merits of

their appeal. In its August 20, 2008 order, the court held that,

based on the evidence tendered, a jury could find that defendant

Kendrick acted in a way that was deliberately indifferent to the

Case 2:06-cv-02691-LKK -EFB Document 133 Filed 09/26/08 Page 4 of 7
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

5

decedent’s medical needs and that a reasonable officer would have

known this. See Order, August 20, 2008, at 23-24. The evidence

supporting this determination, however, was minimal, as it

consisted only of the fact that the medical screening for the

decedent contained so many errors as to suggest that Kendrick did

not actually complete the screening and the apparent fact that the

decedent could not communicate at some point during the pre-booking

process. Id. The court held that a jury could infer from this that,

had the screening been completed properly, the County may have

refrained from releasing the decedent into the elements. Id.

Although the court believes this ruling was correct, the evidence

upon which it was based was sufficiently sparse so as to create a

fair possibility of reversal by the Court of Appeals. 

The remaining factors also weigh in favor of granting the

stay. First, the balance of hardships favors defendants. Certainly,

it would be a tremendous injury to defendants to reach the trial

or post-trial stage on their claims, only then to win the relief

they seek in the Circuit court. Second, there appears to be no harm

to the other parties in granting a stay, as they all have filed

statements of non-opposition to the motion. Finally, the public

interest does not seem particularly served by prompt resolution of

the case. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for a stay is granted.

B. Motion to Enter Partial Final Judgment

Defendants City of Tracy, Flores, and Harries (“Tracy

defendants”) also move for entry of a partial final judgment based

on the August 20, 2008 order granting summary judgment in their

Case 2:06-cv-02691-LKK -EFB Document 133 Filed 09/26/08 Page 5 of 7
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

6

favor. The court denies this motion.

Although the August 20, 2008 order was an “ultimate

disposition of” the claims against the Tracy defendants, it appears

that entry of partial final judgment would result in piecemeal

appellate review of the case. The Tracy defendants contend that

because defendants County of San Joaquin and Kendricks have

appealed the August 20, 2008 decision, entry of partial final

judgment would allow the plaintiffs to appeal the grant of summary

judgment for the Tracy defendants as well. This, they argue, would

permit the Circuit court to consider both appeals together, saving

judicial resources. While at first glance this seems sensible, the

likely differences in the two bases for appeal undermine the

argument.

Defendants County of San Joaquin and Kendricks have appealed

the August 20, 2008 order on the grounds that the court erred in

determining there was no qualified immunity for defendant

Kendricks. See Defendants County of San Joaquin and Thomas

Kendrick’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay Proceedings at 2.

As described above, the court’s holding was based on a

determination that a jury could find that Kendricks was

deliberately indifferent to the decedent’s known medical needs when

performing or failing to perform the medical screening. In

contrast, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Tracy

defendants based on consideration of events that occurred prior to

the decedent’s arrival at the jail and the application of state

immunities. See Order, August, 20, 2008 at 17-19. The only issue

Case 2:06-cv-02691-LKK -EFB Document 133 Filed 09/26/08 Page 6 of 7
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

7

in common between the Tracy defendants and defendants County of San

Joaquin and Kendricks is the question of causation, which appears

irrelevant to the latter’s pending appeal. Accordingly, judicial

economy does not appear served by permitting the Tracy defendants

to appeal now. Instead, it seems more appropriate to allow the

Circuit court to consider the pending appeal of County of San

Joaquin and Kendricks. If this appeal is successful, the plaintiffs

could appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of all

defendants together, which would be the most efficient use of

judicial resources. If the appeal is denied, the Tracy defendants

may at that time renew their motion.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, defendants County of San

Joaquin and Kendrick’s motion for a stay is GRANTED. The parties

shall notify the court promptly upon the Circuit court’s resolution

of defendants County of San Joaquin and Kendrick’s appeal.

Defendants City of Tracy, Flores, and Harries’ counter-motion

to enter partial final judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 26, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02691-LKK -EFB Document 133 Filed 09/26/08 Page 7 of 7