Doe v. County of Kern et al

Filing 104

ORDER Discharging the Order to Show Cause; ORDER Directing Judgment to be Entered in Favor of the Defendants and Against the Plaintiff signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/29/2017. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SAMANTHA VAZQUEZ,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01469 - JLT
ORDER DISCHARGING THE ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE; ORDER DIRECTING JUDGMENT TO BE
ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS
AND AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF

16
17

On December 18, 2017, the Court issued orders granting the motions for summary judgment

18

filed by defendants George Anderson and Heathe Appleton. The Court found the evidence did not

19

support a conclusion that the defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights arising under the United States

20

Constitution. (Docs. 96, 97)

21

Plaintiff also stated claims for “municipal liability” against the County of Kern under 42 U.S.C.

22

§ 1983. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). However, the County did not seek

23

summary judgment. Nevertheless, the County may be held liable only if it inflicts the injury of which a

24

plaintiff complains. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1185 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, without a

25

constitutional injury, Plaintiff’s claims for municipal liability against the County must fail. See id.; see

26

also Simmons v. Navajo Cty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir. 2010) (municipal liability claim

27

cannot be maintained unless there is an underlying constitutional violation).

28

The Court ordered the plaintiff and the County of Kern to show cause whether the plaintiff
1

1

could maintain this action against the County in light of the determination on the motions for summary

2

judgment filed by defendants Anderson and Appleton. (Doc. 98) The plaintiff responded and, though

3

preserving her right to appeal the Court’s judgment, she agreed that the action may not be maintained

4

against the County in light of the Court’s ruling. (Doc. 103) Thus, the Court ORDERS:

5

1.

The action against the County of Kern is DISMISSED;

6

2.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of all defendants and

7
8

against the plaintiff;
3.

Because this order terminates the action, the Clerk is directed to close the matter.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 29, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2