Sanchez v. Keener

Background

The Ninth Circuit issued an order and mandate determining that the operative complaint, when read generously, stated legally cognizable excessive-force claims against Detective Keener and Detective Kvamme based on their conduct during Sanchez’s arrest. The district court’s order implements that determination by directing service of the complaint. The opinion does not decide the merits of whether excessive force occurred.

What the court ordered

The Clerk must issue a summons, and the U.S. Marshal must serve Detective Keener at the Napa Police Department and Detective Kvamme, also identified in the order as “Kvumme,” at the Napa County Sherriff’s Department. Service must include the summons, the first amended complaint and attachments, and the order, without prepayment of fees. The Clerk must also mail courtesy copies to the Napa City Attorney’s Office and the Napa County Counsel’s Office.

The defendants must file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Within 91 days after the order was issued, they must file a dispositive motion that includes adequate factual documentation and complies with Rule 56, the federal rule governing summary judgment, along with records and incident reports from the events at issue. If they believe the case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they must inform the court before the motion deadline.

When serving a dispositive motion, the defendants must also provide the notice required by the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Rand v. Rowland and Woods v. Carey. Sanchez may file and serve an opposition within 28 days after the motion is filed, and the defendants may file a reply within 14 days after the opposition. The motion will be submitted when the reply is due unless the court later orders a hearing.

Other case requirements

Sanchez must serve copies of his communications with the court on the defendants or their counsel once counsel is designated. The parties may conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without obtaining another order under the cited federal or local rules. Sanchez is responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of any address change, and complying with court orders. The order states that failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).

Disposition

The court entered an order of service. It did not grant or deny a merits motion and did not determine whether Sanchez will ultimately prevail on the excessive-force claims.