Tucker v. Gill et al

Filing 24

ORDER Re January 28, 2013 hearing. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2013)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 NOVENA TUCKER, 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 v. DONALD GILL, et al., 9 NO. C12-2678 TEH ORDER RE JANUARY 28 HEARING Defendant. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 The parties shall come prepared to address the following questions at the January 28, 12 2013 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint: 13 (1) What was Detective Green’s role in the police reporting/investigating? 14 (2) You failed to cite Beck v. City of Upland, 527 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2008), in your 15 papers. How does Beck’s interpretation of Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261, 266-68 16 (9th Cir. 1981), affect this Court’s analysis? 17 (3) Can the Court decide whether Plaintiff will be able to overcome the presumption of 18 prosecutorial independence based on the allegations alone and prior to any discovery? 19 (4) Even if we assume that Green knew that Plaintiff’s son was not expelled from school 20 and that his statement about whether Plaintiff would have carried out her threats 21 against Madrigal was therefore based on a false premise, how is that enough to 22 overcome the presumption of prosecutorial independence? 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: 1/24/13 27 28 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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?