Tucker v. Gill et al

Filing 24

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

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