Fox et al v. County of Tulare, et al

Filing 272

ORDER on Defendants' 162 Motion for Summary Judgment Following Parties' Submissions in Reposnse to Court's Order to Show Cause, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/25/14. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

PAMELA J. FOX, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND AS NEXT FRIEND TO
D.M.R., A MINOR,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

vs.

13
14
15
16

COUNTY OF TULARE, LETICIA
CASTANEDA, ERICA SOTO, RON
CASTANEDA, JULIA LANGLEY, CAROL
HELDING, JOHN ROZUM, STEVEN D.
RODGERS and DOES 1-100,

1:11-cv-00520 AWI SMS

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FOLLOWING PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS
IN REPSONSE TO COURT’S ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE

Doc. # 162

17
Defendants.

18
19
20

On July 24, 2014, the court issued an order on Defendants’ motions for summary

21

judgment or summary adjudication (hereinafter the “July 24 Order”). The July 24 Order

22

indicated that the court had preliminarily determined that Plaintiffs’ federal claims pursuant to

23

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 were not viable because Plaintiffs failed to allege facts or law to

24

show that the conduct alleged by Defendants violated any right guaranteed by the United States

25

Constitution or by federal statute. The court noted, however, that the grounds upon which the

26

court based its preliminary decision had not been fully briefed by the parties and that an

27

opportunity would be given for further briefing to show cause why the court’s preliminary

28

A

1
2
3

decision should not be made final. Plaintiffs filed their response to the court’s July 24 Order on
August 7, 2014, and both Defendant parties filed their responses on August 21, 2014.
The court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ response and finds it generally repeats the factual

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

assertions set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and reasserts the previouslyrejected contention that the decision of a family court judge allocating physical custody of a
minor child between biological parents implicates a constitutionally guaranteed right under the
First and/or Fourteenth Amendments. The court’s July 24 Order noted that the term “custody”
as used in family law has two aspects; the aspect of the parents’ participation in, and support of,
the child’s activities, and the aspect of physical custody of the child. As the court endeavored to
point out, the first aspect is always shared coequally between the biological parents and the
second aspect is, by physical necessity, apportioned between the biological parents in the “best
interests of the child.” See Doc. # 266 at 12:9-18. As the court explained, the first aspect has a
constitutional dimension and the second – the apportionment of the child’s physical custody –
does not.
Plaintiffs response to the court’s July 24 Order continues to conflate these two aspects in

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

order to assert that Plaintiff, as a result of one of the several decisions by the family court, was
“stripped” of constitutionally protected rights. The court has explained how the allocation of
physical custody of a child does not implicate a constitutional right of either the parent or the
child so long as; (1) the right of either parent to participate in support and guidance of the child
is not impaired, and (2) so long as the decision regarding the physical custody of the child is
make in respect of adequate due process. The court’s July 24 Decision reviewed the record of
determinations by the family court and the factual allegations of the parties and determined that
Plaintiffs were not denied the constitutionally-guaranteed right to participation in each other’s
lives by any decision of the family court and that the proceedings in the family court satisfied the
requirements of due process. The court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ response to the July 24
Order can find no reason to change that determination.

28
-2A

1
The court has also reviewed Plaintiffs’ response with regard to their claims under

2
3
4
5
6

theories of state created danger (claim one), conspiracy to interfere with a constitutional right in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 on the basis of gender (claim three), and conspiracy to interfere
with a civil right in violation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1083 (claim four). The court continues
to find that each of these claims lacks merit for the reasons set forth in its July 24 Order.
In reviewing the submission of Plaintiffs in response to the court’s July 24 Order, the

7
8
9

court can find no reason to add to, change, or subtract from that order. The court therefore
incorporates that order here by reference and now finalizes the order proposed therein.

10
THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in the court’s July 24 Order, Document Number

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

266, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are hereby
GRANTED. The clerk of the court shall enter judgment as to Plaintiff’s first, second, third and
fourth claims for relief as to all Defendants. The court hereby DECLINES to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to Rule 1367(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the reasons set forth in the court’s July 24 Order. The Clerk
of the Court shall CLOSE THE CASE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3A