California Correctional Supervisor's Organization et al v. Cate et al

Filing 29

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 1/14/10. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISORS ORGANIZATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants. / TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON JANUARY 15, 2010, AT 9:00 A.M. The Court has reviewed the parties' memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on legal authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, with pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority. The Court also suggests that associates or of counsel attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court's questions contained herein.

No. C 09-05631 JSW NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The Court tentatively denies Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. The parties each shall have twenty (20) minutes to answer the following questions: 1. What is Plaintiffs' response to the argument that they have not exhausted state administrative remedies, which is raised by Defendant Endsley? 2. In their reply brief, Plaintiffs cite to Harley v. Schuylkill County, 476 F. Supp. 191 (E.D. Pa. 1979) to support their argument that they have standing to pursue their claims. In Harley, the court concluded that the plaintiff had a constitutional right to "refuse to violate another's federal constitutional right." Harley, 476 F. Supp. 2d at 194. a. b. What is Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' reliance on the Harley case? In light of Defendants' contentions that persons holding the Chief Dentist position will not be terminated from employment with the CDCR, what is Plaintiffs' best argument that they are being forced to violate inmates' constitutional rights? c. Do Plaintiffs have any other authority which stands for the proposition that they have a constitutional right to refuse to violate another's federal constitutional right? 3. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2010

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2