HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.22.25 Board Correspondence_ FW_ UPDATED MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND NOTICE OF ERRATA_RedactedATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying.
From:Clerk of the Board
To:Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Durfee, Peter; Jessee, Meegan; Kimmelshue, Tod;
Kitts, Melissa; Krater, Sharleen; Little, Melissa; Pickett, Andy; Ritter, Tami; Stephens, Brad J.; Sweeney,
Kathleen; Teeter, Doug
Cc:Hancock, LeAnne
Subject:Board Correspondence: FW: UPDATED MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND NOTICE OF
ERRATA
Date:Tuesday, July 22, 2025 12:44:21 PM
Attachments:SERMENO MOTION TO EXPEDITE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND SETTLEMENT DEMAND .pdf
Please see Board Correspondence
From: Larry Sermeno <larrysermeno530@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 12:03 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: UPDATED MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND NOTICE OF ERRATA
Due to plaintiff’s indigency, he is unable to afford the cost of serving a hard copy of the
updated motion for expedited settlement conference and notice of errata on defendants. As a
matter of efficiency and transparency, defendants’ counsel are hereby notified that the
attached file was mailed to the Eastern District federal court on July 22, 2025, along with a
supplemental memorandum of law regarding the legal clarity of the claims presented in the
complaint.
Plaintiff will continue to keep defendants informed as required, but respectfully asks that
opposing counsel understand that his indigent status and current risk of homelessness make it
difficult to serve hard copies for every filing update. Accordingly, plaintiff is utilizing
available resources to maintain consistent notice and communication. When funding permits,
plaintiff will continue to serve through third-party mailing or legal support services.
Should this method raise any concerns, plaintiff encourages defendants’ counsel to address it
with the assigned judge and/or magistrate as appropriate. Plaintiff is willing to explore more
efficient solutions as needed, including the possibility of appointed counsel to help facilitate
service and procedural compliance.
Respectfully,
Larry Sermeno
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LARRY SERMENO,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEBBIE GROVER, MELISSA ROMERO, A. SMITH,
Defendants.
| Case No.: 2:25-cv-01902 DAD DMC
| NOTICE OF ERRATA RE: CASE NUMBER MISIDENTIFICATION IN MOTION FILED ON OR
ABOUT JULY 21, 2025
TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ALL PARTIES:
Plaintiff respectfully submits this Notice of Errata to clarify that the motion mailed on or about
July 21, 2025, titled “Motion to Expedite Settlement Conference” and its attached exhibit,
inadvertently referenced an incorrect case number on the cover page and/or envelope.
The correct case number is 2:25-cv- 01902 DAD DMC, not 2:25-cv-02808 DAD JDP (Sermeno
v. Elmallah). This was a clerical oversight due to similarly captioned related litigation.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court recognize the filing as applicable to the Sermeno v.
Grover matter and disregard any erroneous cross-references to unrelated dockets. Opposing
counsel has been notified through the Clerk of the Board of Butte County via email as a
courtesy.
Plaintiff apologizes for any inconvenience to the Court or staff.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: JULY 22nd, 2025
/s/ Larry Sermeno
Plaintiff, Pro Se
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LARRY SERMENO,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEBBIE GROVER, MELISSA ROMERO, A. SMITH,
Defendants.
Case No.: 2:25-cv-01902 DAD DMC
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND INTERIM RELIEF
Plaintiff Larry Sermeno, proceeding pro se, respectfully moves this Court for an order
setting an expedited settlement conference and granting interim relief in the
above-captioned matter. This motion is necessitated by the undisputed factual record
showing fabrication and presentation of a false felony prior enhancement in Plaintiff’s
probation report, which was judicially corrected at sentencing due solely to Plaintiff’s
own intervention.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts have inherent authority to manage their docket and order settlement
conferences. Interim equitable relief is appropriate where the movant demonstrates:
2
1. A likelihood of success on the merits;
2. A risk of irreparable harm;
3. That the balance of equities tips in their favor; and
4. That the relief is in the public interest.
See Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).
ARGUMENT
1. Plaintiff has already prevailed on the central factual issue—the sentencing court
corrected the false felony prior, affirming Plaintiff’s position and exposing the
Defendants’ misconduct.
2. Presentation of false evidence in a probation report constitutes a due process
violation under Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001), and Gantt v.
City of Los Angeles, 717 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2013).
3. Plaintiff faces immediate harm due to financial instability and risk of
homelessness, justifying interim relief to preserve Plaintiff’s access to justice and
prevent further injury.
4. Delay will prejudice Plaintiff and compound the harm, while the County has no
viable defense given the judicial record.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
1. Set an expedited settlement conference within 14 days;
3
2. Order Defendants to engage in good faith settlement negotiations, including
consideration of Plaintiff’s proposed structured settlement with upfront payment;
3. Appoint counsel due to plaintiffs placement in the Elijah House program in
Oroville, CA and on active CDCR Parole with travel restrictions, his inability to
attend court hearings, and imminent risk of homelessness as of September 7th,
2025(discharge date from program). Plaintiff further believes this would aid the
court in expediting proceedings as it so chooses;
4. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Plaintiff, to the extent it is necessary, pleads under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the United States that the foregoing factual information is true and correct based on
knowledge, belief, and information. To the extent it is based on belief, plaintiff believes it
to be true.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: July 21st, 2025
/s/Larry Sermeno
Plaintiff, Pro Se
See attached Exhibit A – Settlement Demand and Implementation Terms, which outlines
Plaintiff’s good faith efforts to resolve this matter.
4
EXHIBIT A - PLAINTIFF’S SETTLEMENT DEMAND AND TERMS
Settlement Demand Letter
To: Butte County Probation Department
From: Larry Sermeno
Re: Settlement Demand – Sermeno v. Grover, Romero, and Smith
This letter serves as a formal demand for settlement arising from the unconstitutional
actions of Butte County Probation Officers Debbie Grover, Melissa Romero, and A.
Smith. These actions include the fabrication and presentation of false evidence to the
Butte County Superior Court in my criminal case.
Specifically, Probation Officer Debbie Grover included a false felony prior enhancement
in the probation report. This error was not corrected by Melissa Romero, who reviewed
and signed off on the report, nor by A. Smith, who presented it to the court. The
enhancement was ultimately corrected to a misdemeanor at sentencing only because I
personally intervened through counsel. Had this fabrication gone uncorrected, it would
have unlawfully doubled my sentence from 16 months to 32 months and possibly
reduced my credit earning eligibility within CDCR.
These actions amount to violations of clearly established constitutional rights under the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as outlined in Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Furthermore,
this constitutes fabrication of evidence in violation of Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d
1070 (9th Cir. 2001), and deliberate indifference under Gantt v. City of Los Angeles, 717
F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2013).
These violations are actionable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and also implicate
federal criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. The involvement of three
separate officers in failing to verify and correct false information, especially when one
authored it, another signed off, and another presented it to the court, demonstrates
reckless disregard for constitutional duties and accountability. The pattern and manner
of misconduct also suggest racial animus and potential retaliation for previous protected
5
legal activity, given my history of litigation against Butte County and the fact that I am
Black and all three officers involved are White.
Damages Demand:
● Compensatory Damages: $350,000
● Punitive Damages (per defendant): $200,000 x 3 = $600,000
● Total Damages Sought: $950,000
Settlement Terms:
1. Payment of $950,000, structured as:
○ $200,000 upfront within 30 days of execution of agreement
○ The remainder in monthly installments over two years, starting 30 days
after initial payment
2. A formal written acknowledgment of wrongdoing and corrective steps to prevent
recurrence
3. Non-disparagement and non-retaliation clauses
4. Agreement to expunge all reference to the false felony prior from internal records
5. Dismissal of pending federal claims upon fulfillment of settlement
This demand remains open for 30 days. If no resolution is reached, I will pursue all
available legal remedies in federal court, including full discovery and trial by jury.
6
Implementation Terms for Settlement Demand
Total Settlement Amount: $950,000
Structure:
● Upfront Payment: $200,000 within 30 days of agreement execution.
● Installment Payments: $750,000 over 24 months ($31,250/month) beginning the
first business day of the month following the initial payment.
I. Payment & Security Provisions
1. Installment Schedule:
Monthly payments of $31,250 to be made by wire transfer or certified check,
starting no later than the first business day after the 30-day upfront period.
2. Acceleration Clause:
If any installment is more than 15 days late, the remaining unpaid balance shall
become immediately due in full.
3. Default Penalty:
A 5% penalty will be assessed on any late payment, compounded monthly until
paid.
4. Escrow Option (Optional):
The settling agency may place the $750,000 in escrow, with automatic monthly
disbursement, ensuring compliance and removing risk of default.
7
II. Terms of Non-Monetary Relief
5. Written Acknowledgment:
A formal statement acknowledging that the inclusion of a false felony prior
enhancement was improper, that it was corrected by judicial order, and that Mr.
Sermeno’s correction prevented a doubling of his sentence. This statement shall
be included in the settlement file and not sealed.
6. Corrective Training Measures:
Within 90 days of settlement, Butte County Probation Department shall
implement updated training on accuracy and legal sufficiency of court reports for
all probation officers.
7. Record Annotation:
Annotations shall be added to Debbie Grover, Melissa Romero, and A. Smith’s
personnel files indicating the judicial finding that the enhancement was false and
had to be corrected at sentencing.
III. Legal & Protective Clauses
8. Non-Disparagement Clause:
Neither party shall disparage the other publicly or privately, limiting prohibition
only to knowingly making false statements (truthful criticism is allowed). Nothing
in this clause shall prohibit Mr. Sermeno from making truthful statements about
the facts of the case , filing legal documents, or participating in public discourse
regarding systemic reform, provided such statements are not knowingly false or
malicious.
9. Violations result in a $1000 penalty per occurrence, enforceable in court.
10. No Admission of Liability Clause (optional and negotiable):
8
The defendants may include standard language that settlement does not
constitute an admission of wrongdoing—but shall not dispute that a judicial
correction occurred due to fabrication.
11. Mutual Release Clause:
Upon completion of payment, both parties shall release all claims related to the
false felony enhancement, except claims based on future violations or breaches
of this agreement.
12. Anti-Retaliation Provision:
The defendants agree not to retaliate against Mr. Sermeno in any form, directly
or indirectly, including in matters of parole, housing, or employment referrals.
13. Jurisdiction & Enforcement:
Any breach of these terms shall be enforceable in U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of California, where jurisdiction is retained for two years following the final
payment.
SINCERELY
LARRY SERMENO
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Larry Sermeno,
Plaintiff,
v.
Debbie Grover, Probation Officer;
Melissa Romero, Supervising Probation Officer; and
A. Smith, Probation Officer,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:25-cv-01902 DAD DMC
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXPEDITE
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
I. Introduction
Plaintiff respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of his Motion to
Expedite Settlement Conference. This action presents a straightforward claim involving
the knowing or reckless failure of experienced probation officers to verify Plaintiff’s
criminal history prior to submitting a pre-sentence report, resulting in a false felony
enhancement that could have doubled Plaintiff’s sentence. Because the factual and
10
legal issues are clear and liability is well-established, an expedited settlement
conference will promote judicial efficiency and conserve the resources of all parties.
II. The Law Requires Verification of Criminal History Prior to Sentencing
California law imposes a mandatory duty upon probation officers to investigate and
report on the defendant’s prior criminal history:
● Penal Code § 1203(b)(2)(A):
“The probation officer shall investigate and report…the prior record and history
of the defendant.”
● Rule of Court 4.411.5(a)(3):
“The presentence report must include a statement of the defendant’s prior
criminal record…”
These are ministerial duties, not discretionary actions. Defendants, as experienced
probation officers, were fully aware of these mandates.
III. Failure to Investigate Violates Clearly Established Constitutional Rights
Under binding Ninth Circuit authority:
● Costanich v. DSHS, 627 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2010):
Failure to conduct a meaningful investigation before causing serious harm
violates clearly established due process rights.
● Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001):
A deliberate failure to investigate, or reckless disregard for the truth, amounts to
fabrication of evidence and violates due process.
11
● Gantt v. City of Los Angeles, 717 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2013):
Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity when they fail to investigate
obvious constitutional defects.
Here, the failure to verify Plaintiff’s record — especially by officers with long-term
experience — supports not only a due process violation, but a plausible inference of
fabrication and deliberate indifference.
IV. Plaintiff’s Good Faith and Judicial Economy
Plaintiff has now submitted three good faith settlement demands, including the one
attached to the pending motion. These efforts demonstrate Plaintiff’s intent to resolve
the matter without burdening the Court. Moreover, the timing of Plaintiff’s transitional
housing exit (on or around September 7, 2025) creates a substantial risk of hardship if
proceedings are delayed unnecessarily.
V. Conclusion
The facts are clear, the law is settled, and the Defendants’ actions were plainly unlawful.
Expediting the settlement conference aligns with judicial efficiency and ensures that
Plaintiff’s claims are heard in a timely and meaningful way. Plaintiff respectfully requests
the Court grant the motion and set a settlement conference within 14 days.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Larry Sermeno
Plaintiff, In Pro Per
July 22nd, 2025
12
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, , declare that I am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
On July 22nd , 2025, I served a true and correct copy of the following documents:
- Motion for Expedited Settlement Conference
- Settlement Demand with Implementation Terms (Exhibit A)
on the following parties:
- Debbie Grover, Melissa Romero, and A.Smith , pursuant to prior communication
I served a hard copy by mail to the Clerk of the Board of Butte County at 25 County
Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Executed on July 22st, 2025, at Oroville, CA.
Signature:
Print Name:
Address:
13