Borges v. City of Eureka et al

Filing 110

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO CLARIFY CLAIMS; CONTINUING COMPLIANCE HEARING. Compliance hearing set for 8/30/2016 at 2:01pm is CONTINUED to Thursday, 9/8/2016 09:01 AM before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 8/29/16. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

STEPHANY BORGES,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 15-cv-00846 YGR
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO CLARIFY
CLAIMS; CONTINUING COMPLIANCE
HEARING

CITY OF EUREKA, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

The Court recently lifted a stay in this case (see Dkt. No. 108) based on the Ninth Circuit’s

15

en banc decision in Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, --F.3d.-- , 2016 WL 4268955, (9th Cir. Aug. 15,

16

2016). The Court directed the parties to file a joint proposed briefing schedule to address Castro’s

17

impact on defendants’ previously filed motion for summary judgment. (Id.) On August 23, 2016,

18

defendants filed a proposed briefing schedule. (Dkt. No. 109.) By contrast, plaintiff takes the

19

position that no further briefing is required because her claims arise under the Fourth Amendment

20

while Castro addressed claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id.)

21

In light of plaintiff’s position (see id.), the Court requires clarification with respect to the

22

claims plaintiff is prosecuting as set forth in her first amended complaint (Dkt. No. 25.) Given

23

plaintiff’s recent filing, the Court reads plaintiff’s position to be a concession that she is not

24

pursuing her claims arising under the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. Those

25

claims are: Claim Four, Claim Five, and Claim Six (to the extent the Monell claim is for violation

26

of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment). Should plaintiff confirm that she is not

27

prosecuting the claims for violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, the only Section

28

1983 causes of action remaining would be plaintiff’s claims for violation of the Fourth

1

Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures: Claim Three and Claim Six

2

(to the extent the Monell claim is for violation of only1 Fourth Amendment rights).2

3

Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to respond and clarify with respect to Claims Four and Five

4

in whole, and with respect to Claim Six for violation of due process under the Fourteenth

5

Amendment. Should plaintiff confirm she is no longer prosecuting these claims, the Court will

6

require no further briefing in connection with the pending motion for summary judgment as Castro

7

involved Fourteenth Amendment – not Fourth Amendment – claims.

8
9

The compliance hearing set for August 30, 2016, is CONTINUED to Thursday, September
8, 2016 at 9:01 a.m. No later than September 1, 2016 at noon, plaintiff shall file either: (a) a
response to the Court’s construction of her claims as described above; or (b) a statement explaining

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

her failure to comply. If compliance is complete, the parties need not appear and the compliance

12

hearing will be taken off calendar. Telephonic appearances may be allowed if plaintiff has

13

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

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 29, 2016
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

Of course, Claim Three and Claim Six also arise under the Fourteenth Amendment insofar
as the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Fourth Amendment to the States.
2

27
28

The Court further understands that plaintiff is no longer prosecuting Claim One against
the City officers based on their alleged arrest of the decedent without probable cause. Plaintiff did
not substantively oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim.

2