Francis v. McKinney

N.D. California

Francis v. McKinney

DecidedJanuary 31, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-01140

StatusUnknown

This text of Francis v. McKinney (Francis v. McKinney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Francis v. McKinney, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OCEAN MAITE FRANCIS, Case No. 24-cv-01140-VC

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. CERTIFY APPEAL AS FRIVOLOUS; STAYING IN PART DISCOVERY ON NANCY MCKINNEY, et al., FTCA CLAIM Defendants. Dkt. No. 158

It was easy to conclude that the Dublin defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage. The question whether their interlocutory appeal on qualified immunity grounds is frivolous is a close one. An appeal is only frivolous if the “results are obvious, or the arguments of error are wholly without merit.” In re George, 322 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2003). Ultimately, the Court concludes that the allegations in the complaint—particularly as to the higher-level Dublin defendants—could have included more detail that would have made the case against qualified immunity at the pleading stage even stronger. Accordingly, the motion to certify the appeal as frivolous is denied, and discovery relating to the Bivens claims is stayed pending appeal. This leads to the issue of whether discovery should be stayed for the FTCA claim, which overlaps substantially with the Bivens claims against the individual defendants. Discovery on the FTCA claim is stayed with respect to depositions. It would be unfair to go forward with depositions (whether of the individual officers or other witnesses) until the officers know whether they will be actual defendants in the case. Cf. Silva v. San Pablo Police Department, No. 16-CV-04360, 2018 WL 3655706, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018), aff’d, 805 F. App’x 482 (9th Cir. 2020). Document discovery is not stayed. Moving forward on document discovery for the FTCA claim (which needs to occur anyway) would not put the individual officers in the same difficult position of deciding how to handle things. As for interrogatories, the Court encourages the parties to work together productively to move forward with them to the extent doing so would not be unfair to the individual officers. If there is any dispute about the propriety of moving forward with certain interrogatories, all doubts should be resolved in favor of a stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 31, 2025 Lo. me VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OCEAN MAITE FRANCIS, Case No. 24-cv-01140-VC

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. CERTIFY APPEAL AS FRIVOLOUS; STAYING IN PART DISCOVERY ON NANCY MCKINNEY, et al., FTCA CLAIM Defendants. Dkt. No. 158

It was easy to conclude that the Dublin defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage. The question whether their interlocutory appeal on qualified immunity grounds is frivolous is a close one. An appeal is only frivolous if the “results are obvious, or the arguments of error are wholly without merit.” In re George, 322 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2003). Ultimately, the Court concludes that the allegations in the complaint—particularly as to the higher-level Dublin defendants—could have included more detail that would have made the case against qualified immunity at the pleading stage even stronger. Accordingly, the motion to certify the appeal as frivolous is denied, and discovery relating to the Bivens claims is stayed pending appeal. This leads to the issue of whether discovery should be stayed for the FTCA claim, which overlaps substantially with the Bivens claims against the individual defendants. Discovery on the FTCA claim is stayed with respect to depositions. It would be unfair to go forward with depositions (whether of the individual officers or other witnesses) until the officers know whether they will be actual defendants in the case. Cf. Silva v. San Pablo Police Department, No. 16-CV-04360, 2018 WL 3655706, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018), aff’d, 805 F. App’x 482 (9th Cir. 2020). Document discovery is not stayed. Moving forward on document discovery for the FTCA claim (which needs to occur anyway) would not put the individual officers in the same difficult position of deciding how to handle things. As for interrogatories, the Court encourages the parties to work together productively to move forward with them to the extent doing so would not be unfair to the individual officers. If there is any dispute about the propriety of moving forward with certain interrogatories, all doubts should be resolved in favor of a stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 31, 2025 Lo. me VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Francis v. McKinney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-mckinney-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack