Nelson et al v. Butte County Sheriff's Dept., et al

Filing 111

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/11/2013 ORDERING that the 110 Clarification Order is VACATED AND REVERSED. In addition, Plaintiffs' 106 Requests for Attendance at Trial and for Settlement Conference are DENIED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DONALD NELSON, et al.,

11

14

2:09-cv-02776 JAM-EFB

Plaintiffs,

12
13

No.

v.
BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

15

ORDER VACATING AND REVERSING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S CLARIFICATION
ORDER AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
REQUESTS FOR ATTENDANCE AT TRIAL
AND FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

This matter comes before the Court on a sua sponte

16
17

reconsideration of the order entered by the Magistrate Judge on

18

March 11, 2013, clarifying as to whether “Donald Nelson and

19

Thomas Brewer remain as plaintiffs in the cause of action

20

against the County of Butte.”

21

at 1.

22

Attendance at Trial (Doc. #106) and Request for Settlement

23

Conference (Doc. #106, Ex. 1).

24

Clarification Order, Doc. #110,

In addition, before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Request for

Pursuant to the Local Rules, “The assigned Judge may also

25

reconsider any matter at any time sua sponte.”

26

For the reasons set forth below, the Clarification Order is

27

VACATED AND REVERSED and the requests for attendance at trial

28

and for settlement conference are DENIED.
1

L.R. 303(g).

1

I.

OPINION

2

A.

Clarification Order

3

In the Clarification Order, the Magistrate Judge found that

4

“Plaintiffs Donald Nelson and Thomas Brewer therefore remain as

5

plaintiffs in the Eighth Amendment claim against defendants

6

Jones and the Butte County Sheriff’s Department regarding the

7

excessive force policy.”

8

upon review, it is clear as a matter of law that Plaintiffs

9

Nelson and Brewer cannot maintain this claim.

10

Clarification Order at 2.

However,

Under § 1983, “an individual may recover only when that

11

individual’s federal rights have been violated.”

Quintanilla v.

12

City of Downey, 84 F.3d 353, 356 (9th Cir. 1996).

As a result,

13

when there is no underlying constitutional violation, a

14

plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for municipal liability.

15

(citing City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799

16

(stating “[i]f a person has suffered no constitutional injury at

17

the hands of the individual police officer, the fact that the

18

departmental regulations might have authorized the use of

19

constitutionally excessive force is quite beside the point”)

20

(emphasis in original)).

21

Id.

Here, Plaintiffs Nelson and Brewer’s remaining Eighth

22

Amendment claim against Defendants Jones and the Butte County

23

Sheriff’s Department is a Monell claim.

24

Recommendations, Doc. #78, at 32-35; Order Adopting Findings and

25

Recommendations, Doc. #79, at 2.

26

underlying constitutional violations were dismissed.

27

Therefore, they cannot maintain a Monell claim.

28

Monell claim was their only remaining claim, Nelson and Brewer

See Findings and

However, Nelson’s and Brewer’s

2

Id.

Because the

1
2
3

can no longer be plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses Donald Nelson and Thomas
Brewer as plaintiffs in this action.

4

B.

Request for Attendance at Trial

5

Plaintiffs request Joseph Simpson and Thomas Brewer’s

6

attendance at trial.

In the Pretrial Order, the parties were

7

informed that “[i]f any of the plaintiffs are incarcerated and

8

upon plaintiffs’ request, the court will, [no] later than four

9

weeks before trial, issue all necessary writs to provide for

10

plaintiffs’ attendance.”

11

request was made less than two weeks before the trial date,

12

which is set for March 18, 2013.

13

is untimely.

14

because he is no longer a plaintiff in this action.

15
16

Pretrial Order, Doc. #87, at 12.

The

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request

Moreover, the request as to Brewer is now moot

Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs’ request for
attendance at trial.

17

C.

Request for Settlement Conference

18

Finally, Plaintiffs also request a settlement conference.

19

Defendants oppose the request because they do not believe that a

20

settlement conference would be helpful.

21

request was made less than two weeks before the trial date.

22

Accordingly, the Court denies the request for a settlement

23

conference as untimely.

As mentioned above, the

24
25
26

II.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Clarification Order is

27

VACATED AND REVERSED.

In addition, Plaintiffs’ Requests for

28

Attendance at Trial and for Settlement Conference are DENIED.
3

1

Finally, this Court will consider any further filings not in

2

compliance with the Pretrial Order as a violation of the

3

Pretrial Order and may be grounds for sanctions.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2013

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4