Dew v. City of Seaside
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-06009
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Dew v. City of Seaside, Judge Gilliam ordered supplemental briefing before deciding defendants’ summary-judgment motion concerning qualified immunity.
The plaintiffs and defendants, particularly Defendant Manuel Fernandez, whose qualified-immunity defense remained under consideration.
What happened
In Dew v. City of Seaside, the defendants asked for summary judgment, arguing that Manuel Fernandez was protected from the claims by qualified immunity. The court held a hearing on the motion on March 4, 2021.
The court directed the plaintiffs to explain their version of what happened before the shooting, including Mr. Virtue’s position and orientation when he was shot. They also had to identify supporting evidence and case law that they said clearly established that Fernandez’s conduct was unlawful, based on the plaintiffs’ version of the facts.
The court did not decide the motion in this order. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. set deadlines for the plaintiffs’ supplemental brief and the defendants’ response, after which the motion would be submitted for decision.
The detailed version
- Dew v. City of Seaside · No. 4:19-cv-06009
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 5, 2021
Background
The defendants moved for summary judgment. They argued that Defendant Manuel Fernandez was entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity can protect a government official from liability when the plaintiff has not shown both a constitutional violation and that the violated right was clearly established at the time.
The court explained that, at the summary-judgment stage, it had to accept the plaintiffs’ version of the facts and view the evidence in the light most favorable to them. It could not resolve genuine factual disputes in favor of the party seeking summary judgment.
Required Supplemental Briefing
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file supplemental briefing addressing three subjects:
- Their version of what Mr. Virtue and Defendant Fernandez were doing between the time Mr. Virtue left the Pathfinder and the shooting, including Mr. Virtue’s orientation and positioning when he was shot.
- The evidence in the record supporting that version of the facts, with citations to the record.
- For the plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim under Section 1983 and any claim relying wholly or partly on excessive force under Section 1983—identified as causes of action 1 and 5–6—the specific cases that the plaintiffs contended squarely governed the facts and placed the unlawfulness of Fernandez’s actions beyond debate. The plaintiffs also had to compare the facts of those cases with the relevant facts here.
The plaintiffs’ brief could be no longer than 15 pages and was due March 12, 2021. The defendants could file a response of up to 15 pages by March 19, 2021. The defendants were instructed not to rely on arguments requiring the court to resolve genuine factual disputes in their favor.
Ruling and Effect
The order directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing; it did not grant or deny the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The motion would be considered submitted after the defendants’ filing, and no further filings would be allowed unless the court ordered otherwise. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order on March 5, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.