Borges v. City of Eureka et al

Filing 108

ORDER LIFTING STAY; SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 8/16/16. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

STEPHANY BORGES,

8
9
10

Plaintiff,

ORDER LIFTING STAY; SETTING
COMPLIANCE HEARING

v.
CITY OF EUREKA, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.: 15-cv-00846 YGR

Defendants.

12
13

On June 29, 2016, the Court stayed this case pending the Ninth Circuit en banc panel’s

14

decision addressing whether a subjective or objective standard applies in failure-to-protect claims

15

brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Castro v.

16

Cty. of Los Angeles, 797 F.3d 654, 673-76 (9th Cir. 2015), reh’g en banc granted, 809 F.3d 536

17

(9th Cir. 2015). The en banc panel has now issued its decision holding that an objective standard

18

should apply in this context. Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, --F.3d.-- , 2016 WL 4268955, at *7

19

(9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2016). Specifically, the court established four elements a plaintiff must prove to

20

prevail on such a claim:

21

(1) The defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the
conditions under which the plaintiff was confined;
(2) Those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering
serious harm;
(3) The defendant did not take reasonable available measures to abate
that risk, even though a reasonable officer in the circumstances would
have appreciated the high degree of risk involved—making the
consequences of the defendant's conduct obvious; and
(4) By not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff's
injuries.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Id. at *7.

1

Accordingly, the Court LIFTS the stay in this case. The parties shall meet and confer and

2

submit a JOINT proposed briefing schedule, which identifies whether all briefing on defendants’

3

motion for summary judgment must be revised, and if not, which portions in particular will be

4

revised based on Castro.

5

The Court SETS a compliance hearing to be held on Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 2:01

6

p.m., in the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Courtroom 1. By no later

7

than August 23rd, 2016, the parties shall file either: (a) a JOINT proposed briefing schedule as

8

described above; or (b) a one-page JOINT statement setting forth an explanation for their failure to

9

comply. If compliance is complete, the parties need not appear and the compliance hearing will be
taken off calendar. Telephonic appearances will be allowed if the parties have submitted a joint

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

statement in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in sanctions.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 16, 2016
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2