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