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)

Download PDF
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?