Filed: Aug. 16, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 16, 2016
Summary: ORDER LIFTING STAY; SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On June 29, 2016, the Court stayed this case pending the Ninth Circuit en banc panel's decision addressing whether a subjective or objective standard applies in failure-to-protect claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 797 F.3d 654 , 673-76 (9th Cir. 2015), reh'g en banc granted, 809 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2015). The
Summary: ORDER LIFTING STAY; SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On June 29, 2016, the Court stayed this case pending the Ninth Circuit en banc panel's decision addressing whether a subjective or objective standard applies in failure-to-protect claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 797 F.3d 654 , 673-76 (9th Cir. 2015), reh'g en banc granted, 809 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2015). The ..
More
ORDER LIFTING STAY; SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
On June 29, 2016, the Court stayed this case pending the Ninth Circuit en banc panel's decision addressing whether a subjective or objective standard applies in failure-to-protect claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 797 F.3d 654, 673-76 (9th Cir. 2015), reh'g en banc granted, 809 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2015). The en banc panel has now issued its decision holding that an objective standard should apply in this context. Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, ___ F.3d. ___, 2016 WL 4268955, at *7 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2016). Specifically, the court established four elements a plaintiff must prove to prevail on such a claim:
(1) The defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined;
(2) Those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm;
(3) The defendant did not take reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable officer in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk involved—making the consequences of the defendant's conduct obvious; and
(4) By not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff's injuries.
Id. at *7.
Accordingly, the Court LIFTS the stay in this case. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a JOINT proposed briefing schedule, which identifies whether all briefing on defendants' motion for summary judgment must be revised, and if not, which portions in particular will be revised based on Castro.
The Court SETS a compliance hearing to be held on Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 2:01 p.m., in the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Courtroom 1. By no later than August 23rd, 2016, the parties shall file either: (a) a JOINT proposed briefing schedule as described above; or (b) a one-page JOINT statement setting forth an explanation for their failure to comply. If compliance is complete, the parties need not appear and the compliance hearing will be taken off calendar. Telephonic appearances will be allowed if the parties have submitted a joint statement in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
