Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Whitmore v. Wilhelm

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

January 28, 2014

MARLON WHITMORE, Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY WILHELM, an individual; CHRIS PETERS, an individual; JESUS AVINA, an individual; THOMAS BOHANON, an individual; MICHAEL CLARK, an individual; JOSEPH HORSMAN, an individual; CHARLES BLOUNT, an individual; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants.

STEVEN C. MITCHELL, ESQ., SBN 124644, ROBERT W. HENKELS, ESQ., SBN 255410, GEARY, SHEA, O'DONNELL, GRATTAN & MITCHELL, P.C., Santa Rosa, California, Attorneys for Defendants JOSEPH HORSMAN and CHARLES BLOUNT

CAROLINE L. FOWLER, City Attorney, SBN 110313, ROBERT L. JACKSON, Assistant City Attorney, SBN 101770, Santa Rosa, California, Attorneys for Defendants TIMOTHY WILHELM, CHRIS PETERS, JESUS AVINA, THOMAS BOHANAN and MICHAEL CLARK

JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ., SBN 69888, BENJAMIN NISENBAUM, ESQ., SBN 222173, LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS, Oakland, California,

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE CASE FILE OF MARLON WHITMORE

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.

TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND TO THE JUVENILE COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA:

Plaintiff MARLON WHITMORE and defendants TIMOTHY WILLHELM, CHRIS PETERS, JESUS AVINA, THOMAS BOHANON, MICHAEL CLARK, JOSEPH HORSMAN and CHARLES BLOUNT, (hereinafter "Defendants") by and for their counsel of record in the above referenced case, hereby submit the instant Stipulation and Order for Disclosure of the Juvenile Case File of Marlon Whitmore and stipulate as follows:

1. Plaintiff MARLON WHITMORE filed his Second Amended Complaint, Whitmore v. Wilhelm, et. al., Case No. 4:13 CV-01408, against Defendants on or about September 19, 2013 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Second Amended Complaint is predicated on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of civil rights arising from plaintiff's arrest and detention. Accordingly, federal law governs the scope of discovery law, and state law is not binding. See, Kerr v. United States District Court for the N. Dist. Of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 655-56 (9th Cir. 1976).

Summary of State Law re Juvenile Records

2. In California, juvenile records are not reviewable absent a court order. See, Welfare & Institutions Code § 827(a)(1)(P). The inspection of such records is appropriate where the matters contained therein are directly relevant to matters at issue in a separate, civil matter. See, Navajo Express v. Superior Court (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 981 (Disclosure of juvenile file showing prior violent behavior appropriate where former juvenile offender placed documents in issue and alleged that defendant was responsible for causing brain damages, which manifested itself in the form of violent behavior.).

3. Juvenile records may also be sealed upon a petition. See, Welfare § Institution Code § 781(a). In such a case, the person who is the subject of the records may petition the court to inspection of the records by persons named in the petition. Id. The court may also allow the inspection of sealed records, for good cause shown, in specific civil actions. See, Id. at subdv. (b); Cal. Penal Code § 851.7(f). Also, where records are sealed under § 781.5, and where the minor has filed an action against the peace officers, law enforcement agency, or probation officer responsible for an arrest, may be unsealed, upon a showing of good cause, and submitted into evidence. Welfare § Institution Code § 781(k). In such a case, the "records shall be confidential and shall be available for inspection only by the court, jury, parties, counsel for the parties, and any other person authorized by the court." Id.

4. In federal court, parties are entitled to obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claims or defense. FRCP, Rule 26(b)(1). In matters where the court has federal question jurisdiction, the federal common law of privilege controls, not state-law. See, Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1987) 818 F.2d 1515, 1519, fn. 6. Upon good cause shown, a court may issue an order compelling discovery. FRCP, Rule 26(b)(1).

Summary of Facts

5. Here, plaintiff MARLON WHITMORE'S complaint arises out of his detention and arrest in the early morning of March 30, 2011. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, all officers with either the Santa Rosa Police Department or the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department, used excessive force in arresting plaintiff and that he did not resist arrest. Defendants contend that their use of force was reasonable under the circumstances and given plaintiff's combative resistance.

6. Plaintiff was seventeen (17) at the time of the incident forming the basis of his complaint and thus a minor. Since the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.