Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06749/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06749-0/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

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and F.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties consented to proceed before a United States

Magistrate Judge, and by an January 22, 2004 order, this action was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence

J. O’Neill for all further proceedings.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN WESLEY BUCKHANAN, CASE NO. CV-F-03-6749 LJO

Plaintiff, ORDERS ON DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY

JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATIONMOTIONAND

vs. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW

DEEMED ADMISSIONS AND TO AMEND

OFFICER RICHARD JAMES FISHER, COMPLAINT

et al., (Docs. 35, 42, 44.)

Defendants.

 /

INTRODUCTION1

Defendants City of Ceres (“City”), City police chief Art DeWerk (“Chief DeWerk”) and City

police officer Darren Venn (“Officer Venn”) seek summary judgment/adjudication on plaintiff John

Wesley Buckhanan’s (“Mr. Buckhanan’s”) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983") and related excessive

force claims. The City, Chief DeWerk and Officer Venn (collectively “defendants”) base their summary

judgment/adjudication motion chiefly on deemed admissions resulting from Mr. Buckhanan’s failure

to respond timely to defendants’ requests for admission. Defendants set an April 15, 2005 hearing for

their summary judgment/adjudication decision.

Late in the afternoon of April 14, 2005, Mr. Buckhanan filed his motions to withdraw the

Case 1:03-cv-06749-NEW Document 49 Filed 04/22/05 Page 1 of 8
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 Officer Fisher has not appeared in this action. This Court’s May 17, 2004 order granted publication of

summons as to Officer Fisher. On July 9, 2004, Mr. Buckhanan’s filed his declaration of publication of summons.

2

deemed admissions and to amend his first amended complaint to address what his counsel characterizes

as Mr. Buckhanan’s lack of mental capacity. This Court conducted an April 15, 2005 hearing on

defendants’ summary judgment/adjudication motion. Mr. Buckhanan appeared by counsel Mark J.

Alexander, Law Office of Mark J. Alexander. Defendants appeared by counsel Erik L. Lund, Ferguson,

Praet & Sherman. For the reasons discussed below, this Court:

1. DEFERS ruling on defendants’ summary judgment/adjudication motion; and

2. CONSTRUES Mr. Buckhanan’s motions to withdraw deemed admissions and to amend

his first amended complaint as a F.R.Civ.P. 56(f) motion for further discovery to oppose

summary judgment/adjudication; and

3. GRANTS Mr. Buckhanan up to May 13, 2005 to present further evidence consistent with

this order. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Buckhanan’s Claims

Mr. Buckhanan proceeds on his first amended complaint to allege that during the late evening

of January 29, 2003 or early morning of January 30, 2003, defendant City police officer Richard James

Fisher (“Officer Fisher”)2 stopped Mr. Buckhanan as Mr. Buckhanan rode his bicycle, put his service

revolver to Mr. Buckhanan’s head, pulled the revolver’s hammer back and told Mr. Buckhanan he was

going to kill him. The first amended complaint further alleges:

Officer Fisher, without provocation, knocked Plaintiff to the ground and struck Plaintiff

in the face with the pistol causing Plaintiff to loose his front teeth. Ceres Police Officer

and Defendant Darren Venn was present during the events described above, but did

nothing to prevent his partner Defendant Fisher from threatening Plaintiff with a pistol

and did nothing to prevent the pistol whipping of Plaintiff by Officer Fisher. Plaintiff

presented no danger to the above-named Officers who acted deliberately, intentionally,

maliciously, without justification and knowingly and willfully violating Plaintiff John

Wesley Buchkanan’s constitutional rights.

The first amended complaint further alleges Mr. Buckhanan signed a January 30, 2003

Settlement Agreement to settle claims arising from the incident for $500 and dental work to fix his front

teeth. The Settlement Agreement, attached as an exhibit to the first amended complaint, states that Mr.

Case 1:03-cv-06749-NEW Document 49 Filed 04/22/05 Page 2 of 8
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

Buckhanan acknowledges that the “City has informed him of his right to seek legal counsel prior to

signing this Settlement Agreement and that he signs this Settlement Agreement voluntarily with full

understanding of each and every term of this Settlement Agreement and a knowing waiver of the right

to counsel.” The Settlement Agreement further provides that Mr. Buckhanan “states that he has

carefully read the foregoing Settlement Agreement and knows the contents thereof and signs the said

of his own free act and will.”

As to the Settlement Agreement, the first amended complaint alleges Mr. Buckhanan “was afraid

that he would not be permitted to leave until he signed the agreement, he was not permitted to make any

telephone calls to anyone and was not permitted the advice of any attorney. Further he was taken to the

police station by uniformed and non-uniformed police officers, threatened by their manner and

comments with potential criminal prosecution and was afraid for his own safety and freedom at the time

he signed the agreement.” The first amended complaint continues to allege Mr. Buckhanan “thought

that the only way to regain his freedom would be if he complied with the wishes of the officers and

lawyers present by signing the agreement. He did not understand the agreement he was signing and did

not realize that he was being asked to give up all of his claims against the City for the injuries caused

by the Ceres Police Officer who pistol whipped him.”

The first amended complaint alleges:

1. A section 1983 (first) cause of action that defendants and Officer Fisher violated Mr.

Buckhanan’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendmentrights by subjecting Mr. Buckhanan “to

excessive and unreasonable force, thereafter covering up this act and depriving Plaintiff

of his right to recover for his damages”;

2. A section 1983 “custom policy and practice” (second) cause of action that defendants and

Officer Fisher promulgated and enforced “local policies, customs and administrative

practices and usages in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution” which “required and encouraged” retention of Officer Fisher “who

individually has a propensity for violence, dishonesty, bigotry, racism, filing false

reports, doing incomplete investigations and additional abuses of his (their) duties in the

employment of the Ceres Police Department”;

Case 1:03-cv-06749-NEW Document 49 Filed 04/22/05 Page 3 of 8
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

The quoted portions are taken directly from defendants’ requests for admission.

4

3. An assault and battery (third) cause of action against Officers Fisher and Venn; and 

4. A rescission (fourth) cause of action against defendants and Officer Fisher to rescind the

Settlement Agreement.

This Court has bifurcated Mr. Buckhanan’s rescission claims from the remainder of issues.

Deemed Admissions

On November 29, 2004, defendants propounded requests for admission to Mr. Buckhanan, who

was granted an initial extension to January 13, 2005 to provide responses. Mr. Buckhanan requested

and was granted a second extension to January 21, 2005. Mr. Buckhanan requested and was granted a

final (third) extension to February 4, 2005. With his March 4, 2005 letter to Mr. Buckhanan’s counsel,

defense counsel stated that all requests for admission “are now deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 36(a).”

Based on Mr. Buckhanan’s failure to respond to defendants’ requests for admission, defendants

contend the following facts, subject to their requests for admission, are deemed admitted and undisputed

for summary/adjudication3:

1. Prior to signing the Settlement Agreement on January 30, 2003, Mr. Buckhanan:

a. “[R]ead and fully understood the entire Settlement Agreement”; 

b. Was told he “could use the telephone to call an attorney” and that he “could

leave”;

c. “[V]oluntarily waived [his] right to an attorney”;

d. Was “told and understood that [he was] giving up any and all rights to sue the

City of Ceres and/or the officers in either State or Federal Court”;

e. “[S]tated that [he] understood that [he was] giving up [his] right to sue by signing

the Settlement Agreement”; and

f. “[S]tated that [he] wanted [his] teeth fixed and that was all [he] cared about.”

2. Mr. Buckhanan “voluntarily stayed at the Ceres Police Department and signed the

Settlement Agreement.”

3. Mr. Buckhanan “voluntarily gave up [his] right to sue the City of Ceres and/or the

Case 1:03-cv-06749-NEW Document 49 Filed 04/22/05 Page 4 of 8
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

officers in either State or Federal Court” and “voluntarily signed a Settlement Agreement

relieving the City of Ceres and the officers of all liability.”

4. “[O]n January 30, 2003, [Mr. Buckhanan] accepted $500.00 from the City of Ceres.”

5. Mr. Buckhanan “spent the entire $500.00 [he] accepted from the City of Ceres.”

6. Mr Buckhanan “agreed to dental treatment offered by the City of Ceres at no cost to

[him].”

7. Mr. Buckhanan was “not forced, coerced or threatened into accepting the terms of the

Settlement Agreement.”

8. “[A]ll dealings between [Mr. Buckhanan], the City of Ceres and its representatives were

fair, non-coercive and without any undo advantage.”

9. Mr. Buckhanan “suffered no financial or economic loss as a result of this incident.”

10. “[T]he consideration [Mr. Buckhanan] agreed to in the Settlement Agreement was fair

and adequate compensation for any and all injuries [he] claim[s] in this lawsuit.”

Defendants contend that the deemed admissions establish“thattheSettlementAgreement is valid

and that it was voluntary, deliberate and informed” to warrant dismissal of Mr. Buckhanan’s rescission

(fourth) cause of action and in turn his three other causes of action. In his declaration, defense counsel

states:

1. At the time Mr. Buckhanan signed the Settlement Agreement, he “was not in custody nor

had he been arrested, and no criminal complaint was filed or pending against him.”

2. “Before signing the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff clearly stated that he understood that

the Settlement Agreement would be a full release of all claims, including any state and

federal civil claims against the City of Ceres, its officers and the officer involved in the

alleged incident”

3. “I informed plaintiff of his right to seek legal counsel before signing the Settlement

Agreement, however, he voluntarily agreed that he did not require the assistance of an

attorney.”

4. “Plaintiff was also given an opportunity to call an attorney before executing the

Settlement Agreement, only he freely declined that too.”

Case 1:03-cv-06749-NEW Document 49 Filed 04/22/05 Page 5 of 8
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

5. “Before signing the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff confirmed that he read and fully

understood the entire agreement.”

6. “Plaintiff was jovial and unequivocally stated that he entered into the Settlement

Agreement freely and voluntarily.”

Mr. Buckhanan’s Last Minute Motions

Late in the afternoon on the day prior to the hearing on defendants’ summary judgment motion,

Mr. Buckhanan filed his motions to withdraw the deemed admissions and to amend his first amended

complaint and set a May 13, 2005 hearing. Mr. Buckhanan’s counsel contends that at the time of the

events at issue, Mr. Buckhanan “was an adolescent addicted to street drugs with a recognized learning

disability who never finished High School. Due to his medical conditions, [Mr. Buckhanan] lacked

contractual capacity to sign away his rights . . . . Moreover, [Mr. Buckhanan’s] neglect in response to

discovery is due to the same condition.” With his papers, Mr. Buckhanan submitted proposed responses

to defendants’ requests for admission, many of which indicate that Mr. Buckhanan does not recall and

lacks information to admit or deny the requests for admission. Mr. Buckhanan’s counsel has arranged

an April 28, 2005 evaluation of Mr. Buckhanan by a neuropsychologist to address Mr. Buckhanan’s

mental condition. Mr. Buckhanan seeks “‘one last chance’ to plead and prove his case.”

At the April 15, 2005 hearing, Mr. Buckhanan’s counsel acknowledged “no excuse” of untimely

responses to defendants’ requests for admission and claimed that until April 8, 2005, he could not meet

with Mr. Buckhanan who has a drug problem and potential learning disability. According to Mr.

Buckhanan’s counsel, there are factual issues whether Mr. Buckhanan had mental capacity to act for

himself and to verify discovery responses. 

DISCUSSION

F.R.Civ.P. 56(f) addresses continuance to obtain evidence to oppose summary judgment:

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party

cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party’s

opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance

to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or

may make such other order as is just.

This Court’s Local Rule 56-260(b) addresses opposition to summary judgment and provides in pertinent

part:

Case 1:03-cv-06749-NEW Document 49 Filed 04/22/05 Page 6 of 8
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

If a need for discovery is asserted as a basis for denial of the motion, the party

opposing the motion shall provide a specification of the particular facts on which

discovery is to be had or the issues on which discovery is necessary.

The evidence currently before this Court raises no issue regarding Mr. Buchanan’s mental

capacity. Based on the representations of Mr. Buckhanan’s counsel, further evidence may exist to

address Mr. Buckhanan’s mental capacity as well as the failure to respond timely to defendants’

requests for admission. On the basis of good cause, this Court:

1. GRANTS Mr. Buckhanan up to May 13, 2005 to provide evidence as to:

a. The onset and duration of Mr. Buckhanan’s alleged lack of mental capacity;

b. Mr. Buckhanan’s mental capacity at the time of the events subject to his first

amended complaint and continuing to the present;

c. How Mr. Buckhanan’s alleged lack of mental capacity affects his ability to recall

and perceive the events subject to his first amended complaint;

d. The diligence of Mr. Buckhanan’s counsel to recognize and address Mr.

Buckhanan’s alleged lack of mental capacity, including when did Mr.

Buckhanan’s counsel first recognize Mr. Buckhanan’s alleged lack of mental

capacity and why did counsel not sooner recognize and address Mr. Buckhanan’s

alleged lack of mental capacity;

e. Whether a guardian ad litem is necessary for Mr. Buckhanan, and if so, when did

such need arise and why a guardian ad litem has not been sought or sooner sought

for plaintiff;

f. Why Mr. Buckhanan’s counsel did not seek appointment of a guardian ad litem

for Mr. Buckhanan;

g. How Mr. Buckhanan’s alleged lack of mental capacity relates to the Settlement

Agreement;

h. Alleged invalidity of the Settlement Agreement and its effects as claimed by

defendants;

I. How Mr. Buckhanan’s alleged lack of capacity prevented his responses to

defendants’ requests for admission;

Case 1:03-cv-06749-NEW Document 49 Filed 04/22/05 Page 7 of 8
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

j. Why Mr. Buckhanan cannot recall or lacks information to admit or deny

defendants’ requests for admission as indicated in his proposed responses to

them; and

k. Why Mr. Buckhanan’s counsel did not seek a protective order or other relief from

this Court to avoid the deemed admissions when counsel realized difficulty to

obtain Mr. Buckhanan’s responses;

2. VACATES the May 13, 2005 hearing on Mr. Buckhanan’s motions to withdraw deemed

admissions and to amend his first amended complaint. If it deems necessary, the Court

will reset the hearing and set deadlines for defendants’ opposition papers and Mr.

Buckhanan’s reply papers; and

3. ADMONISHES Mr. Buckhanan and his counsel that his Court will tolerate no further

unreasonable delay, and that this will be the only chance to provide the court with the

information that is herein requested.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06749-NEW Document 49 Filed 04/22/05 Page 8 of 8