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.

Holloway v. City of Pasadena

United States District Court, C.D. California

February 23, 2017

PARIS HOLLOWAY
v.
CITY OF PASADENA AND BARTMAN HORN

          Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

          CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

         Proceedings:(IN CHAMBERS) - DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR WRITTEN INDICATION (Filed January 30, 2017, Dkt. 46)

         The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78: Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of February 27, 2017, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This action stems from shots fired by a police officer, Bartman Horn, on October II, 2013. On September 7, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. Dkt. 23. The Court denied defendants' motion on October 19, 2015. Dkt. 28. Thereafter, defendants filed an interlocutory appeal. Dkt. 30.

         Defendants moved to supplement the record on appeal, see Appellate Case No. 15-56770, Dkt. 26, which the Ninth Circuit denied on October 4, 2016, Dkt. 44.

         '[A] proper appeal from a denial of qualified immunity automatically divests the district court of jurisdiction to require the appealing defendants to appear for trial." Chuman v. Wright. 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Apostol v. Galhon, 870 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1989)). However, the Ninth Circuit denied defendants' motion to supplement the record:

without prejudice to counsel seeking a written indication from the district court. . . that the district court is inclined to consider a Rule 60(b) motion to allow the district court to consider the new evidence in the first instance if the court of appeals issues a limited remand.

         Dkt. 44. On January 30, 2017, defendants filed the instant motion seeking a written indication from the Court whether it is inclined to consider a Rule 60(b) motion regarding the Court's prior denial of qualified immunity. Dkt. 46. On February 6, 2017, plaintiff filed an opposition, dkt. 48, and a request to strike defendants' motion, dkt. 47. On February 10, 2017, defendants filed a reply in support of their motion. Dkt. 50.

         Having carefully considered the parties' arguments, the Court declines to offer written indication that it would entertain a Rule 60(b) motion.

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         As noted above, the Court lacks the necessary jurisdiction to grant a Rule 60(b) motion. Nonetheless, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, the Court may give a written indication whether it would entertain such a motion if the matter were remanded. See Russell Rd. Food & Beverage. LLC v. Galam 585 F.App'x 745, 746 (9th Cir. 2014) (district court has authority to entertain a Rule 62.1 motion). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1(a) provides:

If a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may:
(3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion ...

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.