# Sullivan v. County of Tehama

> District Court, E.D. California · February 29, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10059573

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** February 29, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10059573

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10059573. Public record. Not legal advice.