JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
In this action, Plaintiff claims Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his bedroom during a parole search associated with a cotenant. (Doc. 26)
The Court has jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 626 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Further, Plaintiff's claims arise out of events that occurred in Kern County, California. Accordingly, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sitting in Bakersfield. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Plaintiff did not include demand for jury trial in any of his complaints and is amenable to a bench trial. (Doc. 8 at 7.) Defendants have demanded a trial by jury. (Doc. 39 at 4) Thus, trial will be by jury.
1. In May 2013, Plaintiff rented a room in a home at 305 Oakdale Drive, Bakersfield, California.
2. Plaintiff rented the room from Shirley Wells.
3. Ms. Wells owned the home at 305 Oakdale Drive.
4. In May 2013, Ms. Wells also leased a room in the home to her brother, Eddie Wells.
5. Eddie Wells was on parole in May 2013, and under the supervision of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) Division of Adult Parole Operations.
6. Eddie Wells's parole agreement specified that CDCR officials could conduct lawful random parole searches of his residence.
7. In May 2013, Defendant Aguilera worked for CDCR as a Parole Agent I in the Bakersfield office.
8. On May 1, 2013, Defendant Aguilera visited the home at 305 Oakdale Drive to conduct a lawful random parole search of the premises.
9. On that day, Defendant Aguilera inspected all areas of the residence except for two bedrooms, which were locked.
10. Eddie Wells accompanied Defendant Aguilera as she performed the parole search on May 1, 2013.
11. When Defendant Aguilera asked Eddie Wells if she could look inside the two locked bedrooms, Mr. Wells told her that he did not have keys to the bedrooms and that they did not belong to him.
12. In response, Defendant Aguilera told Mr. Wells that she would return to the home the following week, and that she would need to look inside the bedrooms.
13. The next day, Plaintiff and Shirley Wells went to the Division of Adult Parole Operations' Bakersfield Office, and they spoke to Defendant Hernandez.
14. In May 2013, Defendant Hernandez worked as a Supervising Parole Agent III in the Bakersfield office.
15. In May 2013, Hernandez served as a second-level supervisor to Agent Aguilera.
16. When Hernandez talked with Plaintiff and Shirley Wells, he explained to them that it was standard practice for parole agents to inspect all rooms of a home the first time the agent performed a site inspection at a parolee's residence.
17. Defendant Hernandez also explained the various security reasons why this practice was in place.
18. For his part, Plaintiff explained to Hernandez all of the reasons that, in his view, any search of Plaintiff's bedroom would violate his privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment.
19. On May 10, 2013, Defendant Aguilera returned to the home at 305 Oakdale Drive for a follow-up parole search.
20. Defendant Aceves accompanied Defendant Aguilera for this second parole search.
21. With the exception of the two locked bedrooms, Aguilera and Aceves performed a visual inspection throughout the residence, as Defendant Aguilera had done nine days prior.
22. Defendant Aguilera asked Plaintiff if she could conduct a visual inspection of his bedroom area.
23. Defendants Aguilera and Aceves performed a visual inspection of Plaintiff's bedroom area.
All other facts are in dispute, including:
1. Whether Plaintiff consented to a search of his bedroom on May 10, 2013.
2. What was said between Plaintiff and Defendant Aguilera at the threshold of his bedroom on May 10, 2013.
3. What Defendant Aceves was wearing during the parole search on May 10, 2013.
4. Whether Aguilera and Aceves threatened or coerced Plaintiff into allowing them to perform a visual inspection of his bedroom at 305 Oakdale Drive.
5. Whether Aguilera or Aceves touched any of Plaintiff's belongings during their inspection of his bedroom on May 10, 2013, or whether their search was limited to a visual inspection.
1. Whether Plaintiff consented to a visual inspection of his bedroom on May 10, 2013.
2. Whether a search warrant was required before Aguilera and Aceves conducted a visual inspection of Plaintiff's bedroom on May 10, 2013.
3. Whether any of the three Defendants conspired to violate Plaintiff's rights.
4. The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bedroom that he rented at 305 Oakdale Drive, but dispute the scope of that reasonable expectation of privacy.
5. Whether Aguilera and Aceves's inspection of Plaintiff's bedroom exceeded Plaintiff's reasonable expectation of privacy in his bedroom area.
6. Whether Aguilera and Aceves's inspection of Plaintiff's bedroom area violated the California Parole Manual.
7. Whether Plaintiff suffered any harm as a result of any Defendants' conduct.
8. Whether actions taken by any of the three Defendants' were malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $25,000 per defendant, general
The Fourth Amendment prohibits government officials from conducting warrantless searches of areas in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Consent is validly given where "that there was no duress or coercion, express or implied" and that the consent was "`unequivocal and specific' and `freely and intelligently given.'"
To determine whether the consent was free and voluntary, "[t]he proper inquiry `is whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter."
In addition, where government officials have probable cause to believe the parolee—with search terms—resides at the home to be searched, the Constitution is not offended by a warrantless search.
Plaintiff has the burden of proving what, if any, punitive damages should be awarded by a preponderance of the evidence. NINTH CIRCUIT MODEL CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS § 5.5 (2009). The jury must find that the defendant's conduct is "motivated by evil motive or intent, or . . . involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others." Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1986); see also Larez v. Holcomb, 16 F.3d 1513, 1518 (9th Cir. 1994).
None
The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including rebuttal and impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT "MANIFEST INJUSTICE." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(10).
1. Steven Whitfield
2. Eddie Wells
3. Shirley Wells
4. Mr. Martinez
1. John Hernandez
2. Lisa Aceves
3. Donnette Aguilera
The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that the parties expect to offer at trial. NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT "MANIFEST INJUSTICE." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(11).
1. Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Aguilera
2. Defendant Aguilera's Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories
3. Plaintiff's Request for Admissions to Defendant Aguilera
4. Defendant Aguilera's Responses to Request for Admissions
5. Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Aceves
6. Defendant Aceves' Responses to interrogatories
7. Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Hernandez
8. Defendant Hernandez's Responses to Interrogatories
9. Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents as to all Defendants and their respective responses
10. Plaintiff Request for Admissions as to Defendant Aceves
11. Defendant Aceves Response to Request for Admissions
12. Copies. of the Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form 902 file before before the incident of May 10, 2013
13. Copies of State Parole Manual and Regulations regarding parole searches.
14. Copies of photos of the interior of the residence.
1. Memorandum from R. Ambroselli to Regional Parole Administrators, entitled "Effective Supervision Strategies," dated September 30, 2009.
2. Excerpts from Plaintiff's original complaint (ECF No. 1).
3. Excerpts from Plaintiff's second amended complaint (ECF No. 8.)
4. Defendant Aguilera's Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One.
5. Plaintiff's responses to Defendant Aguilera's Interrogatories, Set One.
6. Defendant Aguilera's Requests for Admissions, Set One.
7. Plaintiff's responses to Defendant Aguilera's Requests for Admissions, Set One.
8. Defendant Aceves's Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One.
9. Plaintiff's responses to Defendant Aceves's Interrogatories, Set One.
10. Defendant Aceves's Requests for Admissions, Set One.
11. Plaintiff's responses to Defendant Aceves's Requests for Admissions, Set One.
Any of the exhibits identified herein that have not been provided to the opponent,
1. At the exhibit conference, counsel will determine whether there are objections to the admission of each of the exhibits and will prepare separate indexes; one listing joint exhibits, one listing Plaintiff's exhibits and one listing Defendant's exhibits. In advance of the conference, counsel must have a complete set of their proposed exhibits in order to be able to fully discuss whether evidentiary objections exist.
2. At the conference, counsel shall identify any duplicate exhibits, i.e., any document which both sides desire to introduce into evidence. These exhibits
All Joint exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers preceded by the designation "JT" (e.g. JT/1, JT/2, etc.). Plaintiff's exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 1 by the designation PX (e.g. PX1, PX2, etc.). Defendant's exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 501 preceded by the designation DX (e.g. DX501, DX502, etc.). The Parties SHALL number each page of any exhibit exceeding one page in length (e.g. PX1-1, PX1-2, PX1-3, etc.).
If originals of exhibits are unavailable, the parties may substitute legible copies. If any document is offered which is not fully legible, the Court may exclude it from evidence.
Each joint exhibit binder shall contain an index which is placed in the binder before the exhibits. The index shall consist of a column for the exhibit number, one for a description of the exhibit and one column entitled "Admitted in Evidence" (as shown in the example below).
3. As to any exhibit which is not a joint exhibit but to which there is no objection to its introduction, the exhibit will likewise be appropriately marked, i.e., as PX1, or as DX501 and will be indexed as such on the index of the offering party. Such exhibits will be admitted upon introduction and motion of the party, without further foundation.
4. Each exhibit binder shall contain an index which is placed in the binder before the exhibits. Each index shall consist of the exhibit number, the description of the exhibit and the three columns as shown in the example below.
5. On the index, as to exhibits to which the only objection is a lack of foundation, counsel will place a mark under the column heading entitled "Admissible but for Foundation."
6. On the index, as to exhibits to which there are objections to admissibility that are not based solely on a lack of foundation, counsel will place a mark under the column heading entitled "Other Objections."
After the exhibit conference, Plaintiff and counsel for the defendants
7. The Parties
The following is a list of discovery documents — portions of depositions, answers to interrogatories, and responses to requests for admissions — that the parties expect to offer at trial. NO DISCOVERY DOCUMENT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT "MANIFEST INJUSTICE." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(12).
1. Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Aguilera
2. Defendant Aguilera's Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories
3. Plaintiff's Request for Admissions to Defendant Aguilera
4. Defendant Aguilera's Responses to Request for Admissions
5. Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Aceves
6. Defendant Aceves' Responses to interrogatories
7. Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Hernandez
8. Defendant Hernandez's Responses to Interrogatories
9. Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents as to all Defendants and their respective responses
10. Plaintiff Request for Admissions as to Defendant Aceves
11. Defendant Aceves Response to Request for Admissions
1. Defendant Aguilera's Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One.
2. Plaintiff's responses to Defendant Aguilera's Interrogatories, Set One.
3. Defendant Aguilera's Requests for Admissions, Set One.
4. Plaintiff's responses to Defendant Aguilera's Requests for Admissions, Set One.
5. Defendant Aceves's Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One.
6. Plaintiff's responses to Defendant Aceves's Interrogatories, Set One.
7. Defendant Aceves's Requests for Admissions, Set One.
8. Plaintiff's responses to Defendant Aceves's Requests for Admissions, Set One.
No further discovery is sought by either party.
Any party may file motions in limine. The purpose of a motion in limine is to establish in advance of the trial that certain evidence should not be offered at trial. "Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court's inherent authority to manage the course of trials." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984); Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). The Court will grant a motion in limine, and thereby bar use of the evidence in question, only if the moving party establishes that the evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. Id.
Any motions in limine must be filed with the Court by
The parties are reminded they may still object to the introduction of evidence during trial.
The parties stipulate that copies may be used in place of originals.
None at this time.
The parties have discussed settlement in the past but the Defendants are not currently amenable to settlement.
None
None.
None requested.
If successful at trial, Plaintiff will be seeking attorney fees pursuant to 29 USC §§ 626 and 216 as well as Cal. Gov't Code § 12965(b). (Doc. 52 at 21.)
Jury trial is set for
The parties submitted a joint statement of the case. However, the statement contains information not needed in the statement and was unclear. Thus, the Court has amended the statement to read:
Any objections to this joint statement may be made, as set forth below, to the pretrial order within 10 days.
The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file trial briefs. If any party wishes to file a trial brief, they must do so in accordance with Local Rule 285 and be filed on or before
The parties are required to file their proposed voir dire questions, in accordance with Local Rule 162.1, on or before
The parties shall serve, via e-mail or fax, their proposed jury instructions in accordance with Local Rule 163 and their proposed verdict form on one another no later than
In selecting proposed instructions, the parties shall use Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions or California's CACI instructions to the extent possible. All jury instructions and verdict forms shall indicate the party submitting the instruction or verdict form (i.e., joint, plaintiff's, defendant's, etc.), the number of the proposed instruction in sequence, a brief title for the instruction describing the subject matter, the
Any party may, within 10 days after the date of service of this order, file and serve written objections to any of the provisions set forth in this order. Such objections shall clearly specify the requested modifications, corrections, additions or deletions.
None.
Strict compliance with this order and its requirements is mandatory. All parties and their counsel are subject to sanctions, including dismissal or entry of default, for failure to fully comply with this order and its requirements.
