From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ortiz v. Cnty. of Trinity

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 14, 2022
2:21-cv-02248-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-02248-KJM-AC

11-14-2022

Jessica Ortiz, et al., Plaintiffs, v. County of Trinity, et al. Defendants.


ORDER

The court has reviewed the parties' briefing regarding defendants' second motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Monell and supervisory liability claims against the County of Trinity and Sheriff Saxon under § 1983. See Mot., ECF No. 34; Opp'n, ECF No. 35; Reply, ECF No. 37. For the reasons below, the court directs the parties to file supplemental briefing on the constitutional violation issue, i.e., whether plaintiffs sufficiently allege Fourteenth Amendment state-created danger claims under § 1983.

As the previous presiding judge set out in the order granting defendants' first motion to dismiss, a municipality is liable under § 1983 when a constitutional violation can be attributed to its “policy or custom.” Prev. Order at 5, ECF 24 (citing Monell v. New York City Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)). Relatedly, a supervisor can be liable under § 1983 based on personal participation in a constitutional violation. Id. at 6 (citing Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir. 1998)). With respect to the pending motion, the parties discuss extensively whether the county had a “policy or custom” and whether Sheriff Saxon participated in a constitutional violation. See Mot.; Opp'n; Reply. But neither party has discussed whether a constitutional violation has occurred in the first instance, as required for both Monell and supervisory liability claims. See id. Given the unique facts of this case, the court finds it would benefit from supplemental briefing on the constitutional violation issue.

The court orders the following:

• Defendants shall file a supplemental brief of no more than ten pages addressing the constitutional violation issue by December 2, 2022.
• Plaintiffs shall file an opposition brief of no more than ten pages by December 16, 2022.
• Defendants may file a reply of no more than five pages by December 23, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Ortiz v. Cnty. of Trinity

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 14, 2022
2:21-cv-02248-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2022)
Case details for

Ortiz v. Cnty. of Trinity

Case Details

Full title:Jessica Ortiz, et al., Plaintiffs, v. County of Trinity, et al. Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 14, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-02248-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2022)