Bryan v. Carlsbad, City of et al

Filing 31

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to Supplement Motions. No later than August 18, 2017, Bryan should file a supplement to her two motions (See ECF No. 29 , 30 ) explaining what the proposed new Defendants should have done, and in what capacity they should have acted. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 8/7/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lrf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CATHERINE BRYAN,

CASE NO. 17cv697-LAB (BLM)

12

Plaintiff,

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SUPPLEMENT MOTIONS

vs.
13
14

CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff Catherine Bryan filed two motions, a motion to supplement her complaint and

17

a motion to add new Defendants. On review, it appears Bryan wants to add a claim against

18

Carlsbad city council members who, she says, are acquiescing in the City’s unconstitutional

19

action. Although her proposed supplemental complaint mentions a conspiracy, the only

20

overt act they are accused of is failing to act in response to a demand letter she sent them.

21

(Docket no. 29-1, ¶¶ 6–7, 9, 10.)

22

What is unclear is what Bryan thinks the council members individually or collectively

23

should have done. If she is arguing they should have taken action collectively as a council,

24

or individually as council members, they are immune from suit. See Bogan v. Scott-Harris,

25

523 U.S. 44, 54–56 (1998) (city council members were absolutely immune from suit under

26

§ 1983 for legislative acts). If she believes they were acting (or failing to act) in some other

27

capacity, she does not say what that was. And the lack of an explanation of what they should

28

have done makes it impossible to infer.

-1-

17cv697

1

No later than August 18, 2017, Bryan should file a supplement to her two motions

2

explaining what the proposed new Defendants should have done, and in what capacity they

3

should have acted. The supplement should not be longer than two pages.

4

If Bryan does not provide a satisfactory explanation as directed, the motions may be

5

denied summarily. This order does not suspend the normal briefing schedule, and

6

Defendants should not wait for an order from the Court before filing their oppositions.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 7, 2017

9
10

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

17cv697