The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER
Discovery Cut-Off: 4/2/12 Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 4/20/12
Hearing Date: 5/25/12 9:00
Deadline: 5/21/12 Dispositive Motion Filing
Dispositive Motion Hearing Date: 6/22/12 10:00 Ctrm. 3 Settlement Conference Date: 6/19/12 10:00 Bakersfield Pre-Trial Conference Date: 7/23/12 11:00 Ctrm. 3 Trial Date: 9/11/12 9:00 Ctrm. 3 (JT-6 days)
I. Date of Scheduling Conference. March 2, 2011.
III. Summary of Pleadings.
1. Plaintiff contends that on or about January 11, 2010, Plaintiff was driving a vehicle on or about Oak/Wible Road, at or near the intersection of Wible and Wilson, in Bakersfield, California. Defendants Does 1 through 50, inclusive, police officers, officers, employees and agents of Defendant the City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield Police Department: (a) entered into a conspiracy and agreement to stop, pull-over, seize, arrest, assault, batter and excessively use force against Plaintiff; (b) pulled over, stopped, seized and/or arrested Plaintiff without a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Plaintiff had committed any crime or offense, or that they had any legitimate or proper reason to pull over and stop said Plaintiff; (c) assaulted, battered, intentionally inflicted emotional distress on, and used excessive and improper force against Plaintiff without any proper and adequate excuse, cause or justification; and (d) intentionally, deliberately, indifferently, recklessly and/or negligently failed and refused to promptly, properly and adequately summon medical care for Plaintiff after Plaintiff was injured; and (e) improperly, without probable cause and without adequate excuse or justification seized, converted, damaged and/or trespassed against the chattel of Plaintiff, Plaintiff's vehicle.
1. Defendant contends that the actions of the individual officers (in all aspects of this case, but specifically with regard to the search and seizure of Plaintiff and use of force) were reasonable, appropriate, and in conformance with Bakersfield Police Department Rules and Regulations, as well as accepted police procedures.
2. Defendant contends that Plaintiff suffered no injury as a result of this stop and did not require medical treatment. Plaintiff never complained of any injury at the scene of the incident.
3. Defendant also contends that none of Plaintiff's state or federal statutory or Constitutional rights, or any other rights were violated at any time during the incident which allegedly gave rise to this lawsuit.
4. The doctrine of qualified immunity as more further discussed in the applicable federal statutory and case law applies to the individual officers.
IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.
1. At present, Plaintiff intends to amend the Complaint to substitute and add as Defendants the officers (believed to be two officers) who assaulted, battered, falsely arrested, etc., Plaintiff and who are currently named as fictitious, "Doe," Defendants, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 474, California Government Code § 950.4, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1), once they have been identified.
2. The parties agree that they shall have three months for continuing investigation and discovery to ascertain whether amendments to the pleadings are necessary and if filed on or before June 2, 2011, a motion under Rule 15 shall not be required.
A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further Proceedings.
1. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States.
2. The incident took place on or about January 11, 2011.
3. The incident involved the Bakersfield Police Department and occurred in the City of Bakersfield, State of California, within the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division.
4. The Police Officers involved in the incident were at all times duly appointed and acting officers of the Bakersfield Police Department, acting under the color of law, and within the course and scope of their municipal employment.
5. The City of Bakersfield is a municipal corporation and the public employer of the Bakersfield Police Department Officers involved in this incident.
1. All remaining facts are contested.
1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, et seq.
2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
3. The parties agree that the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule of decision as to supplemental claims.
1. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343.
2. Whether Defendant violated Plaintiff's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
3. Whether Defendant entered into a conspiracy and agreement to stop, pull-over, seize, arrest, assault, batter and ...