Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00126/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00126-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Atwater Police Department
Defendant
Jamar Evans
Plaintiff

Document Text:

-1- 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CASE NO l:07-CV-00126-OWW 

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

Kenneth R. Hedberg, Esq. Bar No. 209310 

HAKEEM, ELLIS & MARENGO 

A Professional Law Corporation 

3414 Brookside Road, Suite 100 

Stockton, California 95219 

Telephone: (209) 474-2800 

Facsimile: (209) 474-3654 

Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF ATWATER 

(sued erroneously herein as ATWATER POLICE 

DEPARTMENT) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO DIVISION 

JAMAR EVANS, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ATWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT. 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________________ 

Case No: l:07-CV-00126-OWW 

(Complaint filed: December 1, 2006) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Defendant, Atwater Police Department (the City of Atwater erroneous sued herein as the 

Atwater Police Department), as the sole defendant, moves for summary judgment on the following 

grounds: (1) plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable federal claim against the defendant on any theory 

or claim; and, (2) plaintiff’s state law claims, if any, are barred by his failure to comply with the 

California Government Claims Act. Defendant’s moving papers were timely filed and served on 

February 4, 2008. 

Defendants’ motion was noticed for hearing at 10:00 a.m. on March 10, 2008. The hearing on 

the motion was continued twice on the court’s motions. 

/ / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00126-OWW -DLB Document 62 Filed 04/24/08 Page 1 of 3
-2- 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CASE NO l:07-CV-00126-OWW 

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

Plaintiff in pro per, Jamar Evans, did not file a written opposition to defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment. 

On April 7, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., defendant’s motion came on regularly for hearing. Counsel 

for the defendant appeared in court for the hearing. Plaintiff was allowed to appear telephonically, 

although he failed to comply with the Local Rules of Practice for the telephonic appearance. 

During the April 7, 2008, hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff was 

permitted to present oral argument in opposition to the motion; notwithstanding, plaintiff’s failure to 

timely oppose the motion. See Rule 78-230(c), Local Rules of Practice: “No party will be entitled to 

be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely 

filed by that party.” 

Plaintiff argued that the federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear his Section 1983 action. Plaintiff 

relied on California Government Code § 945.3. Because the criminal case against him did not 

terminate in his favor until after plaintiff filed this action, plaintiff contends that Section 945.3 

precluded him from bringing this action until then. 

Plaintiff’s argument that the federal court lacks jurisdiction based upon California Government 

Code Section 945.3, or that this Section precluded plaintiff from initiating his action to recover 

damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983 until the criminal action against him terminated, is without merit. 

On April 8, 2008, the court issued and served its Memorandum Decision Granting Defendant's 

Motion For Summary Judgment (designated court docket #41). The Memorandum Decision Granting 

Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 

As established by the moving papers, evidence, and oral argument, the undisputed material 

facts negate any cognizable federal claims against the defendant. The plaintiff has also failed to 

establish a genuine issue of disputed fact as to any federal claims. Accordingly, as set forth in the 

Memorandum Decision Granting Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment, defendant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00126-OWW -DLB Document 62 Filed 04/24/08 Page 2 of 3
-3- 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CASE NO l:07-CV-00126-OWW 

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

Based on the forgoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment is GRANTED, and defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as to all claims set 

forth in plaintiff’s complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 22, 2008 

 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00126-OWW -DLB Document 62 Filed 04/24/08 Page 3 of 3