Winters, et al v. Jordan, et al

Filing 312

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/3/12; A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference shall be held on March 15, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25. All parties or their respective counsel shall appear either in person or by telephone. If any party wishes to appear by telephone, he or she shall contact the undersigned's Courtroom Deputy, at [phone], at least seven days prior to the scheduling conference to discuss the manner in which appearances by telephone proceed. The parties shall file a status report, or a joint status report if possible, on or before March 1, 2012. The status report or reports shall address the topics identified in paragraph 5 of the court's Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 3), Loc al Rule 240(a), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c)(2). To the extent that any appearing defendants against whom claims remain have not filed answers to the Third Amended Complaint, they shall do so no later than February 17, 2012. The defenda nts who are the subject of the pending findings and recommendations (Dkt. Nos. 306, 311), and defendants Adult Protective Services, Kelly Carpenter, and Tamaran Cook, shall file answers to the Third Amended Complaint within 14 days of the resolution of those pending findings and recommendations. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

BRENT ALLAN WINTERS, et al.

11
12
13

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:09-cv-00522 JAM KJN PS

v.
DELORES JORDAN, et al.,

14

Defendants.

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
/

15
16

By this order, the undersigned sets a status (pretrial scheduling) conference in this

17

action.1 The parties are directed to file status reports, or a joint status report if possible, at least

18

14 days in advance of the status (pretrial scheduling) conference.

19

With the hope of adding some clarity to these proceedings, the undersigned

20

recounts below which of the plaintiffs’2 claims remain pending against each remaining, appearing

21

defendant. The chart below assumes that the district judge fully adopts any pending findings and

22
1

23
24
25
26

This action proceeds before this court pursuant to Eastern District of California Local
Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2

As a result of orders entered in this action, the only plaintiffs that remain in this action are:
Brent Allan Winters, Jennifer Winters, Cacey Winters, Susan Winters, and Christy Winters. (See
Order, Sept. 24, 2009, Dkt. No. 68; Order, Nov. 12, 2009, at 2 & n.1, Dkt. No. 89; Order, Feb. 1,
2011, Dkt. No. 221; Findings & Recommendations, Apr. 15, 2011, Dkt. No. 281, adopted by Order,
July 1, 2011, Dkt. No. 295.)
1

1

recommendations filed by the undersigned (Dkt. No. 306, 311).3 If the district judge rejects all or

2

part of the undersigned’s pending findings and recommendations, the court will amend the chart

3

as appropriate.4

4

Defendant(s)

Claim for Relief

Relevant Plaintiff(s)

Relevant Order(s)
or Findings and
Recommendations

Valerie Logsdon

1. Civil Battery
(Claim 9)

1. Christy Winters

Order, Sept. 14,
2010, Dkt. No. 178

Virginia Armstrong

1. Civil Battery
(Claim 9)

1. Christy Winters

Order, Sept. 14,
2010, Dkt. No. 180

2. Breach of
Contract (Claim 22)

2. All Plaintiffs

Dewey Harpainter

1. Trespass on land
(Claim 12)

1. Cacey Winters;
and Jennifer Winters

Order, May 10, 2011,
Dkt. No. 287

Adult Protective
Services (Nevada
County); Kelly
Carpenter; and
Tamaran Cook

1. Equal Protection
Violation (Claim 7)

1. Susan Winters

Order, May 10, 2011,
Dkt. No. 288

Micah Arbaugh

1. Fourth
Amendment
Violation (Claim 4),
to the extent
premised on 42

1. All Plaintiffs

Findings and
Recommendations,
Nov. 11, 2011, Dkt.
No. 306.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
3

21

The findings and recommendations filed on February 2, 2012, recommend that all of
plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice as to defendant David Silber. Accordingly, Silber’s
name does not presently appear in the chart.

22
23
24

Moreover, assuming that the district judge adopts the findings and recommendations filed
on November 11, 2011, in full, it appears that no claims would remain against defendants Richard
Kimball and Susan McGuire. However, a specific recommendation that those defendants be
dismissed from the action was not contained in the findings and recommendations. The lack of
claims against those defendants is denoted by three asterisks in the chart.

25
4

26

Additionally, to the extent that these charts conflict with an order resolving a defendant’s
motion to dismiss, the order on the particular motion to dismiss controls.
2

1

Defendant(s)

Claim for Relief

Relevant Plaintiff(s)

2
3

Relevant Order(s)
or Findings and
Recommendations

U.S.C. § 1983, and
not a Bivens claim.

4

2. Civil Battery
(Claim 9)

2. Susan Winters

3. Trespass on Land
(Claim 12)

3. All Plaintiffs

4. “Excessive Force”
(Claim 20)

4. All Plaintiffs

5. Invasion of
Privacy (Claim 25)

5. All Plaintiffs

1. “Unlawful
Detention” (Claim 1)

1. All Plaintiffs

2. “False Arrest”
(Claim 2)

2. All Plaintiffs

3. Fourth
Amendment
Violation (Claim 4),
to the extent
premised on 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and
not a Bivens claim.

3. All Plaintiffs

4. Abuse of Process
(Claim 6)

4. All Plaintiffs

5. “Excessive Force”
(Claim 20)

5. All Plaintiffs

20
21

6. Fifth Amendment
Violation (Claim 24)

6. All Plaintiffs

7. Sixth Amendment
Violation (Claim 30)

7. All Plaintiffs

1. All Plaintiffs

25

1. “Unlawful
Detention” (Claim 1)

26

2. “False Arrest”

2. All Plaintiffs

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Robert Bringolf

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

22
23
24

Nathan Hutson

3

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

1

Defendant(s)

Claim for Relief

Relevant Plaintiff(s)

2
3

(Claim 2)

4

3. Fourth
Amendment
Violation (Claim 4),
to the extent
premised on 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and
not a Bivens claim.

3. All Plaintiffs

4. Fifth Amendment
Violation (Claim 24)

4. All Plaintiffs

5. Sixth Amendment
Violation (Claim 30)

5. All Plaintiffs

Jason Jones

1. Abuse of Process
(Claim 6)

1. All Plaintiffs

Richard Kimball

***

Jesse King

1. Fourth
Amendment
Violation (Claim 4),
to the extent
premised on 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and
not a Bivens claim.

1. All Plaintiffs

2. Trespass on Land
(Claim 12)

2. All Plaintiffs

3. Invasion of
Privacy (Claim 25)

3. All Plaintiffs

1. “False Arrest”
(Claim 2)

1. All Plaintiffs

2. False
Imprisonment
(Claim 3)

2. All Plaintiffs

Relevant Order(s)
or Findings and
Recommendations

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

22
23
24
25

Theresa Kingsbury

26
4

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

1

Defendant(s)

Claim for Relief

Relevant Plaintiff(s)

3. Fourth
Amendment
Violation (Claim 4),
to the extent
premised on 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and
not a Bivens claim.

3. All Plaintiffs

4. “Personal Injury,”
i.e., Civil Battery
(Claim 5)

4. Cacey Winters

5. Civil Battery
(Claim 9)

5. Cacey Winters

6. “Excessive Force”
(Claim 20)

6. All Plaintiffs

7. Fifth Amendment
Violation (Claim 24)

7. All Plaintiffs

8. Sixth Amendment
Violation (Claim 30)

8. All Plaintiffs

1. Equal Protection
Violation (Claim 7)

1. All Plaintiffs

16
17

2. Invasion of
Privacy (Claim 25)

2. All Plaintiffs

1. “Unlawful
Detention” (Claim 1)

1. All Plaintiffs

2. “False Arrest”
(Claim 2)

2. All Plaintiffs

3. False
Imprisonment
(Claim 3)

3. All Plaintiffs

4. Fourth
Amendment
Violation (Claim 4),
to the extent
premised on 42

4. All Plaintiffs

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Relevant Order(s)
or Findings and
Recommendations

15
Elaine LaCroix

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Dominic La
Fountain

5

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

1

Defendant(s)

Claim for Relief

Relevant Plaintiff(s)

2
3

U.S.C. § 1983, and
not a Bivens claim.

4

5. “Personal Injury,”
i.e., Civil Battery
(Claim 5)

11
12
Jeff Martin

14
15
16
17

1. Fourth
Amendment
Violation (Claim 4),
to the extent
premised on 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and
not a Bivens claim.

1. All Plaintiffs

2. All Plaintiffs

3. Invasion of
Privacy (Claim 25)

10

9. All Plaintiffs

2. Trespass on Land
(Claim 12)

9

8. All Plaintiffs

9. Sixth Amendment
Violation (Claim 30)

8

7. All Plaintiffs

8. Fifth Amendment
Violation (Claim 24)

7

6. All Plaintiffs

7. “Excessive Force”
(Claim 20)

6

5. Susan Winters

6. Abuse of Process
(Claim 6)

5

13

Relevant Order(s)
or Findings and
Recommendations

3. All Plaintiffs

1. “False Arrest”
(Claim 2)

1. All Plaintiffs

2. False
Imprisonment
(Claim 3)

2. All Plaintiffs

3. Fourth
Amendment
Violation (Claim 4),
to the extent
premised on 42

3. All Plaintiffs

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Joe McCormack

6

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

1

Defendant(s)

Claim for Relief

Relevant Plaintiff(s)

2
3

U.S.C. § 1983, and
not a Bivens claim.

4

4. “Personal Injury,”
i.e., Civil Battery
(Claim 5)

9
10
11
12

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

7. All Plaintiffs

8. Sixth Amendment
Violation (Claim 30)

8

6. All Plaintiffs

7. Fifth Amendment
Violation (Claim 24)

7

5. Cacey Winters

6. “Excessive Force”
(Claim 20)

6

4. Cacey Winters

5. Civil Battery
(Claim 9)

5

13

Relevant Order(s)
or Findings and
Recommendations

8. All Plaintiffs

Susan McGuire

***

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

Alicia Milhous

1. “Unlawful
Detention” (Claim 1)

1. All Plaintiffs

2. “False Arrest”
(Claim 2)

2. All Plaintiffs

3. Fourth
Amendment
Violation (Claim 4),
to the extent
premised on 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and
not a Bivens claim.

3. All Plaintiffs

4. “Excessive Force”
(Claim 20)

4. All Plaintiffs

5. Fifth Amendment
Violation (Claim 24)

5. All Plaintiffs

6. Sixth Amendment
Violation (Claim 30)

6. All Plaintiffs

26
7

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

1

Defendant(s)

Claim for Relief

Relevant Plaintiff(s)

Relevant Order(s)
or Findings and
Recommendations

Clifford Newell

1. Abuse of Process
(Claim 6)

1. All Plaintiffs

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

Charles O’Rourke

1. Abuse of Process
(Claim 6)

1. All Plaintiffs

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

Keith Royal

1. Claim pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Claim 19)

1. All Plaintiffs

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

2. “Respondeat
Superior” liability
(Claim 32), to the
extent it is premised
on plaintiffs’
common law tort
claims

2. Plaintiffs whose
common law tort
claims proceed
against relevant
defendants

1. Fourth
Amendment
Violation (Claim 4),
to the extent
premised on 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and
not a Bivens claim.

1. All Plaintiffs

2. Trespass on Land
(Claim 12)

2. All Plaintiffs

3. Invasion of
Privacy (Claim 25)

3. All Plaintiffs

1. Fourth
Amendment
Violation (Claim 4),
to the extent
premised on 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and
not a Bivens claim.

1. All Plaintiffs

2. Trespass on Land
(Claim 12)

2. All Plaintiffs

3. Invasion of

3. All Plaintiffs

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Dennis Salisbury

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Daniel Saunders

8

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

1

Defendant(s)

Claim for Relief

Relevant Plaintiff(s)

Privacy (Claim 25)

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

Guy Selleck

1. Abuse of Process
(Claim 6)

1. All Plaintiffs

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

Chris Sharp

1. Fourth
Amendment
Violation (Claim 4),
to the extent
premised on 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and
not a Bivens claim.

1. All Plaintiffs

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

2. Civil Battery
(Claim 9)

2. Susan Winters,
Cacey Winters, and
Christy Winters

3. Civil Assault
(Claim 10)

3. Susan Winters,
Cacey Winters, and
Christy Winters

4. Trespass on Land
(Claim 12)

4. All Plaintiffs

5. “Excessive Force”
(Claim 20)

5. All Plaintiffs

6. Invasion of
Privacy (Claim 25)

6. All Plaintiffs

1. “Unlawful
Detention” (Claim 1)

1. All Plaintiffs

2. “False Arrest”
(Claim 2)

2. All Plaintiffs

3. Fourth
Amendment
Violation (Claim 4),
to the extent
premised on 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and
not a Bivens claim.

3. All Plaintiffs

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Matt Steen

26
9

Relevant Order(s)
or Findings and
Recommendations

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

1

Defendant(s)

Claim for Relief

Relevant Plaintiff(s)

4. “Excessive Force”
(Claim 20)

4. All Plaintiffs

5. Fifth Amendment
Violation (Claim 24)

5. All Plaintiffs

6. Sixth Amendment
Violation (Claim 30)

6. All Plaintiffs

1. “False Arrest”
(Claim 2)

1. All Plaintiffs

2. False
Imprisonment
(Claim 3)

2. All Plaintiffs

3. Fourth
Amendment
Violation (Claim 4),
to the extent
premised on 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and
not a Bivens claim.

3. All Plaintiffs

4. “Personal Injury,”
i.e., Civil Battery
(Claim 5)

4. Cacey Winters

5. Civil Battery
(Claim 9)

5. Cacey Winters

18
19

6. “Excessive Force”
(Claim 20)

6. All Plaintiffs
7. All Plaintiffs

21

7. Fifth Amendment
Violation (Claim 24)

22

8. Sixth Amendment
Violation (Claim 30)

8. All Plaintiffs

1. Equal Protection
Violation (Claim 7)

1. Susan Winters

2. Civil Battery
(Claim 9)

2. Susan Winters;
Cacey Winters;

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Zsa Zsa Wied

Relevant Order(s)
or Findings and
Recommendations

Same as above, Dkt.
No. 306

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

20

23
24
25
26

Delores Jordan

10

Findings and
Recommendations,
Feb. 2, 2012, Dkt.
No. 311.

1

Defendant(s)

Claim for Relief

Relevant Plaintiff(s)

2
3

Christy Winters; and
Jennifer Winters

4
3. Civil Assault
(Claim 10)

3. Susan Winters;
Cacey Winters;
Christy Winters; and
Jennifer Winters

4. Trespass on land
(Claim 12)

4. All Plaintiffs

5. Invasion of
Privacy, only to the
extent that it
concerns alleged
intrusions on May 26,
2008, and June 2,
2008

5

5. All Plaintiffs

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Relevant Order(s)
or Findings and
Recommendations

***

14

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

16
17

A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference shall be held on March 15,

2012, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25.
2.

All parties or their respective counsel shall appear either in person or by

18

telephone. If any party wishes to appear by telephone, he or she shall contact the undersigned’s

19

Courtroom Deputy, at [phone], at least seven days prior to the scheduling conference to

20

discuss the manner in which appearances by telephone proceed.

21

3.

The parties shall file a status report, or a joint status report if possible, on

22

or before March 1, 2012. The status report or reports shall address the topics identified in

23

paragraph 5 of the court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 3), Local Rule 240(a), and Federal Rule of

24

Civil Procedure 16(c)(2).

25

4.

To the extent that any appearing defendants against whom claims remain

26
11

1

have not filed answers to the Third Amended Complaint, they shall do so no later than February

2

17, 2012. The defendants who are the subject of the pending findings and recommendations

3

(Dkt. Nos. 306, 311), and defendants Adult Protective Services, Kelly Carpenter, and Tamaran

4

Cook, shall file answers to the Third Amended Complaint within 14 days of the resolution of

5

those pending findings and recommendations.5

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 3, 2012

8
9

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

5

In regards to defendants Adult Protective Services, Kelly Carpenter, and Tamaran Cook,
this order supersedes the Minute Order entered on May 10, 2011 (Dkt. No. 289), insofar as the
deadline for the filing of those defendants’ answer or answers is concerned .
12