Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01765/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01765-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Sacramento
Defendant
Jimmy Southern
Plaintiff
Drake Walker
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMY SOUTHERN, individually and 

as successor-in-interest to Decedent 

JEREMY SOUTHERN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, a municipal 

corporation; DRAKE WALKER, 

individually and in his capacity as a 

City of Sacramento Police Officer; and 

DOES 1–50, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-01765-MCE-AC

ORDER

Plaintiff Jimmy Southern (“Plaintiff”) brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants City of Sacramento (the “City”) and police officer 

Drake Walker (“Walker”) (collectively, “Defendants”) based on the fatal shooting of 

Plaintiff’s brother, Jeremy Southern (“Decedent”). Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 15 

(“SAC”). The Court previously granted a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings brought 

by Defendants and entered judgment in their favor on Plaintiff’s second, third, and fifth 

claims for relief. ECF Nos. 33, 38. Defendants have now filed a Motion for Summary 

Judgment as to Plaintiff’s remaining claims for excessive force, negligence, and battery. 

Case 2:20-cv-01765-MCE-AC Document 59 Filed 12/13/23 Page 1 of 6
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

ECF No. 50. For the following reasons, that Motion is GRANTED.1

STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary judgment when “the 

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). One of the principal purposes of Rule 56 is to 

dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325.

Rule 56 also allows a court to grant summary judgment on part of a claim or 

defense, known as partial summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (“A party may 

move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or the part of each 

claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought.”); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. 

Madan, 889 F. Supp. 374, 378–79 (C.D. Cal. 1995). The standard that applies to a 

motion for partial summary judgment is the same as that which applies to a motion for 

summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); State of Cal. ex rel. Cal. Dep’t of Toxic 

Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 1998) (applying summary 

judgment standard to motion for summary adjudication).

In a summary judgment motion, the moving party always bears the initial 

responsibility of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying the 

portions in the record “which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of 

material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the moving party meets its initial 

responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine 

issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. 

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986); First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 

391 U.S. 253, 288–89 (1968).

1 Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this 

matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Local Rule 230(g).

Case 2:20-cv-01765-MCE-AC Document 59 Filed 12/13/23 Page 2 of 6
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

In attempting to establish the existence or non-existence of a genuine factual 

dispute, the party must support its assertion by “citing to particular parts of materials in 

the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, 

affidavits[,] or declarations . . . or other materials; or showing that the materials cited do 

not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party 

cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The 

opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that 

might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 251–52 (1986); Owens v. Local No. 169, Assoc. of W. Pulp and 

Paper Workers, 971 F.2d 347, 355 (9th Cir. 1992). The opposing party must also 

demonstrate that the dispute about a material fact “is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is 

such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 

477 U.S. at 248. In other words, the judge needs to answer the preliminary question 

before the evidence is left to the jury of “not whether there is literally no evidence, but 

whether there is any upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict for the 

party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251 

(quoting Improvement Co. v. Munson, 81 U.S. 442, 448 (1871)) (emphasis in original). 

As the Supreme Court explained, “[w]hen the moving party has carried its burden under 

Rule [56(a)], its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some 

metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. Therefore, 

“[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the 

non-moving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 587.

In resolving a summary judgment motion, the evidence of the opposing party is to 

be believed, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed 

before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 

255. Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party’s 

obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. 

Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244–45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff’d, 

Case 2:20-cv-01765-MCE-AC Document 59 Filed 12/13/23 Page 3 of 6
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

4

810 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1987). 

ANALYSIS

As is relevant here, Defendants move for summary judgment on the basis that 

Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims on behalf of Decedent, who died on July 21, 

2020. Under California law, Decedent’s claims may be pursued by either a personal 

representative of his estate or, if there is no such representative, by his successor in 

interest. Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 377.30. There is currently no representative of 

Decedent’s estate, and because Decedent died intestate, his successors are determined 

by statute: 

Except as provided in Section 6402.5, the part of the intestate 

estate not passing to the surviving spouse, under Section 

6401, or the entire intestate estate if there is no surviving 

spouse, passes as follows:

(a) To the issue of the decedent, the issue taking equally if they 

are all of the same degree of kinship to the decedent, but if of 

unequal degree those of more remote degree take in the 

manner provided in Section 240.

(b) If there is no surviving issue, to the decedent's parent or 

parents equally.

(c) If there is no surviving issue or parent, to the issue of the 

parents or either of them, the issue taking equally if they are 

all of the same degree of kinship to the decedent, but if of 

unequal degree those of more remote degree take in the 

manner provided in Section 240.

Cal. Probate Code § 6402. Plaintiff is Decedent’s brother, but Defendants have offered 

evidence that Decedent was adopted in 1999, that his adoptive mother, Ina Southern, is 

still living, and that she is thus Decedent’s rightful successor in interest. Defendants’ 

arguments are well taken. 

In fact, Plaintiff does not contest these facts, but instead argues that Plaintiff and 

Decedent’s sister, Ida Southern, testified at her deposition in May 2023 that she believed 

Case 2:20-cv-01765-MCE-AC Document 59 Filed 12/13/23 Page 4 of 6
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

that Ina

2 had either lost custody or surrendered custody of Decedent prior to him 

reaching the age of majority. Decl. of Patrick Buelna, Ex. 12. In addition, at the end of 

November 2023, Plaintiff filed a petition to be appointed as the estate representative. 

Id., Ex. 14. 

Ultimately, it is undisputed that Ina Southern adopted Decedent, and it is 

speculative at best that she ever surrendered her parental rights. Ida’s vague 

recollections are insufficient to create a triable issue of fact, and Plaintiff has been on 

notice for months that it would be necessary to locate actual evidence that Ina’s parental 

rights were terminated, if that was actually the case. The evidence before the Court 

establishes that Ina, and not Plaintiff, has standing to pursue this action. Moreover, 

Plaintiff’s eleventh-hour attempt to establish himself as representative of the estate, 

especially since he admits in his probate application that Ina was his adoptive mother, is 

unhelpful.

3

 Plaintiff has been on notice for months that standing was an issue in this 

action. In fact, in April 2023, at Plaintiff’s deposition, counsel advised that they were 

planning to substitute Plaintiff as the personal representative of the estate. Decl. of 

Ricardo Baca, ECF No. 50-3, Ex. C. No effort was timely made, however, to establish 

Plaintiff as Decedent’s representative, and it is far from clear that he is entitled to be so 

appointed in any event. Accordingly, on this record, Defendants have shown they are 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

 

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED. The 

2 Given the identical surnames, the Court uses Ina and Ida’s first names going forward. 

3 Plaintiff filed an incomplete copy of the Petition with this Court, omitting the pages where Plaintiff 

discusses Decedent’s relatives and lists both Ina and Ida as Decedent’s next of kin. Decl. of Richard 

Baca, ECF No. 58-1, Ex. K. It is rather damning that Plaintiff listed Ina as Decedent’s adoptive mother in 

one court filing at the same time he is arguing before this Court that her rights were terminated. Had 

Plaintiff provided the entire document in the first place, the optics would likely not be as bad. As it stands, 

it appears that Plaintiff was attempting to mislead this Court. 

Case 2:20-cv-01765-MCE-AC Document 59 Filed 12/13/23 Page 5 of 6
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

Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in the defendants favor and close this 

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2023

Case 2:20-cv-01765-MCE-AC Document 59 Filed 12/13/23 Page 6 of 6