Dew v. City of Seaside

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 5, 2021
• Docket: 4:19-cv-06009
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LORI DEW, et al., Case No. 19-cv-06009-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL 9 v. BRIEFING 10 CITY OF SEASIDE, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 On March 4, 2021, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary 14 Judgment. See Dkt. No. 49. Defendants argue that Defendant Manuel Fernandez is entitled to 15 qualified immunity. See generally id. 16 A court considering a claim of qualified immunity makes a two-pronged inquiry: (1) 17 whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether such 18 right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 19 223, 232 (2009) (citing Saucier v. Katz, 535 U.S. 194, 201 (2001)). While the second prong does 20 not “require a case directly on point, [ ] existing precedent must have placed the statutory or 21 constitutional question beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011). The 22 Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts . . . not to define clearly established law at a high level 23 of generality.” Id. at 731. And the Supreme Court has further instructed that, where “the result 24 depends very much on the facts of each case . . . officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless 25 existing precedent ‘squarely governs’ the specific facts at issue.” Nicholson v. City of Los 26 Angeles, 935 F.3d 685, 695 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1153 27 (2018)); see also City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500, 504 (2019) (“[W]e have stressed 1 violated the Fourth Amendment. . . . While there does not have to be a case directly on point, 2 existing precedent must place the lawfulness of the particular [action] beyond debate.”) 3 (quotations omitted and brackets in original). In identifying the “specific facts at issue” at the 4 summary judgment stage, the Court must accept Plaintiffs’ version of the facts. See Tolan v. 5 Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656–57 (2014) (holding that “under either prong [of the qualified immunity 6 analysis], courts may not resolve genuine disputes of fact in favor of the party seeking summary 7 judgment” and “must view the evidence ‘in the light most favorable to the opposing party’ ”) 8 (citations omitted). 9 Plaintiffs are directed to submit supplemental briefing that does the following: 10 (1) Details Plaintiffs’ version of the facts regarding what Mr. Virtue and Defendant 11 Fernandez were doing between the time Mr. Virtue left the Pathfinder and the time of 12 the shooting, including Mr. Virtue’s orientation and positioning when he was shot; 13 (2) Identifies, with record cites, the evidence that supports Plaintiffs’ version of the facts; 14 and; 15 (3) Identifies, with respect to Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim under Section 1983, 16 and any claim that relies in whole or in part on a showing of excessive force under 17 Section 1983 (i.e., causes of action 1 and 5–6), the specific case law that Plaintiffs 18 contend “squarely governs the specific facts at issue” and places the unlawfulness of 19 the actions taken by Defendant Fernandez (accepting Plaintiffs’ version of the facts) 20 beyond debate, to include a detailed comparison of the facts in the cited case(s) to the 21 relevant facts here. 22 Plaintiffs shall file their supplemental brief of no more than 15 pages by March 12, 2021. 23 Defendants then may file a response of up to 15 pages by March 19, 2021. In addressing whether 24 clearly established law put the unlawfulness of Defendant Fernandez’s conduct beyond debate, 25 Defendants must adhere to the Tolan standard discussed above (specifically, Defendants must not 26 make arguments that would require the Court to resolve genuine disputes of material fact in their 27 favor, and must base their arguments on a view of the evidence assessed in the light most 1 If the parties believe more time is necessary to submit these filings, they should meet and 2 || confer and jointly propose a different briefing schedule. The motion will be deemed submitted 3 once Defendants’ filing is made, and no further filings will be permitted unless otherwise ordered. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: 3/5/2021 7 7 A Bpurend 3. Ad, □ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28