Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00500/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00500-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NELSON NED FIGUEIRA, deceased, by 

and through JUDITE CASTILLO, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SUTTER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-00500-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

The court recently issued an order on the defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss 

the second amended complaint. Order Mar. 2, 2016, ECF No. 23; Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 15. 

The court concluded that the plaintiff’s factual allegations were insufficient to support the 

plaintiff’s claims (1) that defendant Parker was deliberately indifferent to Nelson Figueira’s 

serious medical needs; (2) that Sutter County was deliberately indifference to Figueira’s 

constitutional rights; (3) that defendants Parker, Samson, Bidwell, and Garza were liable for their 

actions as supervisors of defendant Brandwood; and (4) that defendant Parker was liable for 

depriving the plaintiff of her parent-child relationship. These claims were dismissed without 

leave to amend. Id. at 5. 

The plaintiff also alleged Sutter County deprived her of a parent-child relationship 

in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court’s order did not specifically address this 

Case 2:15-cv-00500-KJM-AC Document 25 Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

claim, and Sutter County requests clarification on this point. ECF No. 24. On review of the 

second amended complaint, the parties’ briefing, and applicable law, the court now dismisses this 

fourth claim against Sutter County without leave to amend. The complaint does not allege in any 

more than conclusions that Sutter County maintained an unconstitutional policy, custom, or 

practice. See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 47–48. Conclusions cannot withstand a motion to dismiss. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also, e.g., Clouthier v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 

591 F.3d 1232, 1249–50 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing the fundamentals of a claim against a 

municipal entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for its omissions and lack of adequate policies); Order 

Oct. 23, 2015, at 11–14, ECF No. 15 (dismissing the same claims with leave to amend). For the 

reasons described on page 4 of this court’s March 2, 2016 order, leave to amend this claim is 

denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 17, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00500-KJM-AC Document 25 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 2