Desantis et al., v. City of Santa Rosa et al.
Filing
216
ORDER re Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 10, 2012. (jswlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
PATRICIA DESANTIS, et al.,
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
Plaintiffs,
No. C 07-03386 JSW
v.
CITY OF SANTA ROSA, et al.,
ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN
LIMINE NO. 2
Defendants.
/
14
15
At the pretrial conference, the Court granted Defendants’ motion in limine No. 2 to
16
exclude evidence of prior or subsequent “use of force” acts by the City and/or individual officer
17
defendants. In support of and in response to this motion, both Defendants and Plaintiffs focused
18
on a particular incident by Defendant Richard Celli in the Thurston v. Santa Rose Police Dept.,
19
Case No. 08-1115 CRB (“Thurston case”). The Court found that the facts of Thurston were too
20
dissimilar from this matter to be relevant to the Monell claim here. The Court further noted that
21
the trial court in Thurston granted summary judgment for the defendants on the grounds that the
22
plaintiff had not demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the use
23
of excessive force. On this basis, the Court granted Defendants’ motion in limine. The Court is
24
willing to reconsider its ruling to exclude all evidence of prior “use of force” acts, if Plaintiffs
25
submit a offer of proof to demonstrate the existence of specific prior incidents in which officers
26
used excessive force and were not disciplined.
27
The Court notes that Plaintiffs contend that the prior chief of police had a policy of
28
disciplining use of force only if the officers’ use of force was criminal beyond a reasonable
the moving force behind Plaintiffs’ alleged constitutional violation here. See Blair v. City of
3
Pomona, 223 F.3d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474
4
(9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, Plaintiffs must show that there were actual incidents in which
5
officers used excessive force and were not disciplined, according to this stated policy.
6
Otherwise, if no officers ever used excessive force, then this alleged incorrect policy would not
7
have caused any constitutional violation here. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS
8
Plaintiffs to file an offer of proof by no later than 7:00 a.m. on September 11, 2012. In this
9
offer of proof, Plaintiffs shall describe the facts of any alleged prior incidents in which officers
10
used excessive force and what evidence Plaintiffs seek to admit to prove these alleged incidents
11
For the Northern District of California
doubt. However, even if that was the prior police chief’s policy, such a policy must have been
2
United States District Court
1
of excessive force. The Court further notes that Plaintiffs must show that any alleged prior
12
incidents of excessive force are similar to the facts alleged in this matter.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: September 10, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
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?