Opinion

Sullivan v. County of Tehama

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Feb 29, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.5%

The opinion

Patrick L. Deedon, State Bar No. 245490

1

Tracey A. Werner, State Bar No. 315876

2 MAIRE & DEEDON

2851 Park Marina Drive, Suite 300

3 Redding, CA 96001-2813

(530) 246-6050 / 246-6060 (fax)

4

pdeedon@maire-law.com

5 twerner@maire-law.com

6 Attorneys for Defendants,

COUNTY OF TEHAMA, TEHAMA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

7

DAVE HENCRATT, JESSE BROWN, and DANIELLE GIBSON

8

Alexander Cabeceiras, State Bar No. 338857

9 DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, LLP

633 W. 5th Street, Suite 3250

10

Los Angeles, California 90071

11 (332) 910-5631 / (212) 587-0760 (fax)

alexc@dereksmithlaw.com

12

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

13

VIOLA SULLIVAN

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

17

VIOLA SULLIVAN, an individual, CASE NO.: 2:23-cv-02351-MCE-KJN

18

Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY

19

MATTER PENDING

20 vs. UNAVAILABILITY OF PLAINTIFF’S

COUNSEL AND FURTHER

21 COUNTY OF TEHAMA, a public entity, PROCEEDINGS IN PLAINTIFF’S

TEHAMA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, UNDERLYING CRIMINAL MATTER

22

a public entity, DAVE HENCRATT, Tehama IN STATE COURT

23 County Sheriff, in his individual and official

capacity as Sheriff, JESSE BROWN, Deputy,

24 an individual, DANIELLE GISBON, an

individual,

25

DOES 1-25 inclusive,

26

Defendants.

27 ____________________________________/

28

1

RECITALS

2

1. Plaintiff is Viola Sullivan (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), represented by Alex Cabeceiras at

3

DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, LLP.

4

5 2. Defendants are County of Tehama, Tehama County Sheriff’s Office, Dave Hencratt, Jesse

6 Brown, and Danielle Gibson (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”),

7

represented by Patrick L. Deedon and Tracey A. Werner, at MAIRE & DEEDON.

8

3. Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on December 4, 2023 [ECF 13].

9

4. Defendants filed their Answer to the First Amended Complaint on January 8, 2024 [ECF

10

11 17].

12 5. Plaintiff brings this complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that

13

defendants violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The alleged

14

constitutional violations occurred during the course of Plaintiff’s arrest for a violation of

15

California Penal Code §148(a).

16

17 6. Plaintiff further alleges municipal liability against the County for failing to train and

18 discipline their law enforcement officers, for their alleged deliberate indifference with

19

respect to the conduct of their officers.

20

7. Following her arrest, the Tehama County District Attorney filed a criminal case against

21

the Plaintiff for the §148(a) misdemeanor violation, which case remains pending in

22

23 Tehama County Superior Court as case number 22CR002866.

24 8. There is a pretrial hearing in Plaintiff’s criminal matter on February 28, 2024, at which

25

time she is expected to ask the Court to grant her motion for pre-trial diversion. The trial

26

date is currently scheduled for April 24, 2024.

27

28

9. While Counsel for the parties mutually agree that not every criminal conviction for

1

2 resisting arrest under Penal Code §148(a) would bar a subsequent civil action against the

3 arresting officer for excessive force under §1983 pursuant to the Heck Doctrine1, Counsel

4

for the Defendants asserts that whether or not Heck applies cannot be evaluated until the

5

criminal case is formally concluded. In this case, the criminal matter will not be concluded

6

until either diversion is complete or trial is concluded, whichever occurs sooner.

7

8 10. Counsel for the parties spoke by telephone on January 24, 2024, to begin their Rule 26(f)

9 conference.

10

11. During the Rule 26(f) conference, Counsel for Plaintiff advised that he would be going out

11

on paternity leave beginning February 18, 2024, and continuing for approximately 4

12

weeks.

13

14 STIPULATIONS

15 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and AGREED by and between Plaintiff and Defendants,

16

through their respective counsel of record, that:

17

12. The parties stipulated to a stay of this matter for all purposes, including all discovery and

18

Rule 26 obligations, until March 18, 2024;

19

20 13. It is anticipated that by March 18, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel will have returned from

21 paternity leave and the parties will have an answer on the ruling from the Tehama County

22

Superior Court as to Plaintiff’s motion for diversion;

23

14. The parties will meet and confer again after Plaintiff’s Counsel’s return from leave and,

24

within 30 days of March 18, 2024, will either file: (i) a joint status report including a Rule

25

26 26(f) discovery plan; (ii) a stipulation to further stay this matter pending final resolution

27

28 1 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)

of the underlying criminal case; or (iii) a joint letter to the Court regarding any

1

2 disagreements pertaining to staying the civil proceedings any further;

3 15. Any changes to this Stipulation will require the express written consent of Counsel for all

4

parties;

5

16. This Stipulation shall be filed in the California Eastern District federal court; and

6

17. A violation of the Stay afford the wronged party a right to proceed with motion practice

7

8 and seek sanctions, including attorneys’ fees and costs.

9

10

Dated: February 29, 2024 MAIRE & DEEDON

11

12 _/s/ Patrick L. Deedon__________________

PATRICK L. DEEDON

13

TRACEY A. WERNER

14 Attorneys for Defendants,

COUNTY OF TEHAMA, TEHAMA COUNTY

15 SHERIFF’S OFFICE, DAVE KAIN, JESSE

BROWN, and D. GIBSON

16

17

Dated: February 29, 2024 DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, LLP

18

19

__/s/ Alex Cabeceiras___________________

20 ALEX CABECEIRAS

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

21 VIOLA SULLIVAN

22

23 [Proposed] Order to follow on next page.

24

25

26

27

28

1 ORDER ON STIPULATION TO STAY MATTER PENDING UNAVAILABILITY OF

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PLAINTIFF’S

4 UNDERLYING CRIMINAL MATTER IN STATE COURT

3 For good cause appearing and based upon the stipulation of the parties, this matter is

4 hereby stayed as follows:

5 1. This matter is stayed for all purposes, including all discovery and Rule 26 obligations, until

6 March 18, 2024.

7 2. The parties are to meet and confer again after Plaintiff's Counsel’s return from leave and

are ordered to file either a joint status report, including a Rule 26(f) discovery plan, a

10 stipulation to further stay this matter, or bring forth any disagreements over a continued

11 stay of this proceeding, no later than April 17, 2024.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 .

Dated: February 29, 2024

14 A 4

□ _ LCS

15 MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR)\(_)

16 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 PAGE 5

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY MATTER PENDING UNAVAILABILITY OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL AND FURTHER

Marina Dr. Ste. 300 | | PROCEEDINGS IN PLAINTIFF’S UNDERLYING CRIMINAL MATTER IN STATE COURT

,CA 96001-2813

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.