Opinion
Civil No. 00-1640-FR
August 20, 2001
Mervin Arnold and Nellie Arnold, Scappoose, Oregon, Pro Se.
Robert S. Wagner, David C. Lewis, Miller Wagner, LLP, Portland, Oregon, for Defendants City of Scappoose, Donald Zimmerman, Douglas Carpenter, and Norman Miller.
Steven A. Kraemer, Hoffman, Hart Wagner, LLP, Portland, Oregon, for Defendant Margo Dew.
Michael A. Lehner, Lehner, Mitchell, Rodrigues Sears, LLP, Portland, Oregon, for Defendants Scappoose Rural Fire Protection, District, Michael Greisen, Jerome Watts, and Mark Reed.
Rodney K. Norton, Legal Counsel, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon, for Defendants Oregon Health Sciences University, Jeffrey Greenbaum, and Betty Walls.
OPINION AND ORDER
The matters before the court are:
1) Defendants City of Scappoose, Donald Zimmerman, Douglas Carpenter and Norman Miller's motion to bifurcate trial and partially stay discovery (#40); and
2) Defendant Margo Dew's motion to bifurcate trial and partially stay discovery (#45).
BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs, Mervin Arnold and Nellie Arnold, representing themselves, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages, including punitive damages, to redress an alleged violation of their rights protected by the United States Constitution against the City of Scappoose; the Chief of Police of the City of Scappoose; Scappoose police officers Donald Zimmerman, Douglas Carpenter and Norman Miller; the Scappoose Rural Fire Protection District and certain of its personnel; and the Oregon Health Sciences University and certain of its personnel.
The facts alleged by the plaintiffs in their complaint arose from an incident which took place on December 2, 1998 at the Scappoose Laundromat located in the State of Oregon involving the arrest of Mervin Arnold by defendants Zimmerman, Carpenter and Miller.
CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES
The defendants move the court to bifurcate this proceeding so that the trial of the claims made by the plaintiffs against the arresting officers, as well as the discovery related to those claims, will be separate and apart from the trial of the claims made by the plaintiffs against the City of Scappoose, the Scappoose Chief of Police, and the punitive damages claims alleged against the individual officers. The defendants contend that the proposed bifurcation and partial stay of discovery will be conducive to judicial expedition and economy and will avoid undue prejudice to the individual defendants. The defendants explain that the claims of misconduct alleged against defendants Zimmerman, Carpenter and Miller relating to the events of December 2, 1998 are straightforward, and that the plaintiffs must prevail on those claims against the individual defendants before there can be any municipal liability. The defendants contend that the plaintiffs have pursued a wide range of entirely separate acts of alleged misconduct during the course of these proceedings, and that bifurcation will advance the resolution of the case.
The plaintiffs oppose the proposed bifurcation on the grounds that all of the defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contend that the proposed bifurcation will deny them their right to a jury determination of the facts which will support their allegations of a conspiracy among the defendants, including the City of Scappoose.
APPLICABLE STANDARD
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim . . . or of any separate issue or any number of claims . . . always preserving inviolate the right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States.
RULING OF THE COURT
The plaintiffs' allegations of constitutional violations by defendants Zimmerman, Carpenter and Miller relating to events occurring on December 2, 1998 constitute the threshold issue in this case. Absent any constitutional violations by these police officers, there can be no liability against the City of Scappoose. City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986); Palmerin v. City of Riverside, 794 F.2d 1409, 1414-15 (9th Cir. 1986). There is significant judicial economy in separating the question of the constitutionality of the actions of the individual officers from the question of municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Servs. of New York City, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). See, e.g., Quintanilla v. City of Downey, 84 F.3d 353, 356 (9th Cir. 1996).Having reviewed the pleadings and the discovery disputes in this case, the court concludes that all of the interests in Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be advanced by bifurcating the issue of the constitutionality of the actions of the individual officers from the issue of the liability of the City of Scappoose under Monell.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 1) Defendants City of Scappoose, Donald Zimmerman, Douglas Carpenter and Norman Miller's motion to bifurcate trial and partially stay discovery (#40) is GRANTED; and 2) Defendant Margo Dew's motion to bifurcate trial and partially stay discovery (#45) is GRANTED.