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)

Download PDF
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?