Barba et al v. City of Shafter et al
Filing
54
Additional ORDER on Defendants' 43 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT and ORDER for Parties to Contact the Magistrate Judge, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/16/2015. (Gaumnitz, R)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
MIKE E. BARBA, BARBRA BARBA, and
TYE BARBA,
Plaintiffs
10
11
12
13
v.
CITY OF SHAFTER, RANDY
MILLIGAN, JOSHUA STEPHENS, and
DOES 1 through 20,
ADDITIONAL ORDER ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER
FOR PARTIES TO CONTACT THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
(Doc. No. 43)
Defendants
14
15
CASE NO. 1:12-CV-0195 AWI JLT
On February 26, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for
16
summary judgment. See Doc. No. 51. As part of that order, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show
17
cause why summary judgment should not be granted on: (1) all claims alleged against Defendant
18
Joshua Stephens; and (2) Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claims. See id. With respect to the
19
claims against Stephens, the evidence demonstrated that there was probable cause to detain and
20
admit Plaintiff Mike Barba under California Welfare & Institutions Code Sec. 5150, and Stephens
21
did not use his taser against Barba. See id. The evidence did not appear to indicate any viable
22
claims against Stephens. See id. With respect to the Fourteenth Amendment familial relationship
23
claims, the Court noted that the interference appeared to be based on Barba’s detention, but that
24
the detention was justified under Sec. 5150. See id. That is, there did not appear to be
25
unwarranted interference by Defendants. See id.
26
27
28
Plaintiffs were ordered to present evidence and show cause in writing no later than March
13, 2015. See id.
On February 27, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation to alter Defendants’ reply date. See
1
Doc. No. 52. The Court granted the stipulation the same day. See Doc. No. 53. In that order, the
2
Court corrected a characterization of the additional briefing that was to be submitted. See id. The
3
Court explained that Plaintiffs had been ordered to show cause, and if they failed to do so, then
4
summary judgment on their Fourteenth Amendment claims and all claims against Defendant
5
Stephens would be granted. See id.
March 13, 2015 has passed, and Plaintiffs filed no response of any kind to the Court’s
6
7
show cause order. Because Plaintiffs have failed to show cause, and pursuant to the Court’s prior
8
warning and orders, additional summary judgment in favor of Defendants will be granted.
9
10
ORDER
11
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
12
1.
13
14
15
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment familial
relationship claims and all claims against Defendant Joshua Stephens is GRANTED; and
2.
The parties shall contact the Magistrate Judge with fourteen (14) days of service of this
document for the purpose of setting new pre-trial and trial dates in this case.
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?