Spies et al v. El Dorado County et al
Filing
35
ORDER granting 30 Motion to Dismiss signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/17/17. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
LAWRENCE SPIES, SR., et al.;
13
Plaintiffs,
CIV. NO. 2:16-02232 WBS GGH
ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
14
v.
15
EL DORADO COUNTY, et al.;
16
Defendants.
17
----oo0oo----
18
19
Before the court is the motion defendants Dr. John
20
Skratt, Dr. Alexis Lieser, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
21
Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss plaintiffs’ first and third causes
22
of action for Eighth Amendment and substantive due process
23
violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against them because the
24
Complaint does not allege that they are state actors.
25
Defs.’ Mot. 6:21-7:3 (Docket No. 30-1)).
26
27
28
1
(See
1
Dr. Skratt and Dr. Lieser also moved to dismiss the
medical malpractice claim for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. (See Defs.’ Mot. 9:1-10:4.) However, they
withdrew this portion of the motion in light of the court’s
1
1
The Complaint contains only conclusory allegations that
2
Dr. Skratt and Dr. Lieser were “acting within the course and
3
scope of th[eir] employment and under color of law.”
4
27-28.)
5
they were state actors and rely solely on these conclusory
6
statements.
7
(“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
8
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”).
9
Moreover, in light of information that plaintiffs received from
(Compl. ¶¶
Plaintiffs fail to include any factual allegations that
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
10
defendant El Dorado County, plaintiffs do not oppose defendants’
11
motion to dismiss their § 1983 claims against Dr. Skratt and Dr.
12
Lieser.
13
(Pls.’ Opp’n 7:4-5 (Docket No. 32).)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to dismiss
14
plaintiffs’ first and third causes of action for Eighth Amendment
15
and substantive due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as
16
against Dr. Skratt and Dr. Lieser be, and the same hereby is,
17
GRANTED.
18
Dated:
January 17, 2017
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
previous order finding there was supplemental jurisdiction over
the medical malpractice claim. (See Defs.’ Reply 2:1-5 (Docket
No. 33).)
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?