Motion for an Extension of Time

    September 7, 1979

J. Franklin Reid 
Clerk
United States District Court 

for the Western District of 
Tennessee 

Western Division 
950 Federal Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Re: Garner v. Memphis Police Department,
et al., Civ. No. C-75-145___________

Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed the original and 1 

copy of a Motion for An Extension of Time in 
the above-noted case. Also enclosed are 2 
copies of a letter to the Honorable Harry W. 
Wellford. Please file these in accordance 
with the local rules.

Thank you for your prompt attention in 
this matter.

Sincerely,
J I'" L\.\

Steven L. Winter

Enclosures
SLW/clg
cc: Walter L. Bailey, Jr., Esq.

•I.'\

■ • W  i 4 ...

(  ̂'•-7 . >, .<'
• 4 1

l O  C O L U M B U S  C I R C L E 5 8 6-8 3 9 7 N E W  Y O R K ,  N . Y 1 0  0 19

■ ':?r

; , V / 'y ♦ *t' V



I J

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

WESTERN DIVISION

CLEAMTEE GARNER, father and next 
of kin of EDWARD EUGENE GARNER, a 
deceased minor.

Plaintiffs,
V- Civil Action No. C-75-145

MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF 
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE; WYETH 
CHANDLER, Mayor of Memphis, and 
JAY W. HUBBARD, Director of 
Memphis Police,

Defendants,

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

In its order of August 10, 1979, this Court invited the 
parties to submit memoranda regarding whether further hearings 
and trial is necessary in the instant case or whether the 
questions presented in the Sixth Circuit's remand may be resolved 
on the record with the submission of briefs and an opportunity 
for oral argument. The Court provided the parties forty days in 
which to submit such memoranda. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 6(b), 
plaintiffs move the Court for an extension of time in which to 
file such a memorandxam for the following reasons:

1. The appeal in the instant case was argued by the under­
signed, new counsel for the plaintiffs. As a result, 
the Court's August 10 order was not mailed directly
to the undersigned in the ordinary course.

2. Moreover, the Court's August 10 order was signed and 
filed while plaintiffs' counsel was out of the office 
on vacation. Plaintiffs' counsel did not learn of 
the briefing schedule set by the Court until 
September 5, 1979, when he returned from vacation.



3. No prejudice to the defendants would result from the 
grant of an extension of time. Defendant's counsel 
has consented to such an extension.

4. An extension of time is necessary to afford plaintiffs' 
counsel an opportunity to adequately respond to the 
Court's August 10 order, to further delineate the 
issues raised by the questions remanded by the Sixth 
Circuit and to more fully develop why additional 
evidence may be necessary to determine those issues.

Accordingly, plaintiffs respectfully move this Court for 
an additional thirty days in which to submit the memorandum 
called for by the Court's order of August 10, 1979.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of September, 1979.

< .iV:
STEVEN L. WINTER 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019
Counsel for Plaintiffs



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For 
Extension Of Time has been served by United States Mail, postage 
prepaid, to Henry L. Klein, Esq., 100 North Main Building, Suite 
3500, Memphis, Tennessee 38103.

This 7th day of September, 1979.

' i
STEVEN L. WINTER



W e ^ o  fr o m

Steven L  Winter

To ;

Re

Clyde Murphy 
Steve Ralston 
Eric Schnapper 
Peter Sherwood
Remand in Garner v. Memphis Police Dept.

Date: Sept. 10, 1979
In June, the 6th Circuit remanded this case 

involving police use of deadly force against 
unarmed fleeing felons. It specified four qiisKkxH 
questions to be determined on remand.

1. Does a municipality have a similar quali­
fied immunity or privilege based on good faith under Monell?

2. If not, is a municipalityr's use of deadly force under Tennessee IcWi to capture allegedly 
nondangerous felons fleeing from nonviolent k kkxr 
crimes constitutionally permissible i under the 
fourth, sixth, eigth, and fourteenth amendments?

3. Is the municipalities use of hollow point 
bullets constitutionally permissible under these 
provisions of the constitution?

4. If the municipal conduct in any of these 
H respects violates the constitution, did the 
conduct flow from a"policy or custom" for which 
the city is liable for damages under Monell?

In August, the district court invited the 
parties to submit memoranda on whether further 
hearings are necessary of whether the case can be 
disposed of on briefs and oral argument. These 
memoranda are due on the 19th, but I have asked 
for a 30 day extension. I would appreciate all 
suggestions regarding:

1. What are the factual issues that we want to 
prove and what types of evidence should we adduce?

2. What types of experts do we need to find and where and how can we find them?3. Any thoughts on the legal theories we want 
to expound.

Thanks for your expeditious help.



led

|7 ■■ •:> 9 OS! « T ̂

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

WESTERN DIVISION

CLEAMTEE GARNER,
Plaintiff,

V.

MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, 
et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C-75-145

O R D E R

Counsel for the plaintiff has requested an extension 
of time in which to respond to the Court’s August 10 Order.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is granted an additional 
twenty (20) days from this date in which to file such 
response.

It is so ORDERED this / / day of September, 1979.

This docuaent entered on docket sheet in oomplianoe with Rule 58 and/or 
79 (a) FRCP on / 7 - 7  ̂