Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00710/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00710-6/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

P.Y.M.T., a minor, by and

through her guardian ad litem

DEIBI ONTIVEROS, an

individual and as Successor

in Interest to decedent,

Miguel Moreno Torrez; MARIA

CARRILLO, an individual and

Successor in Interest to 

decedent, Miguel Moreno 

Torrez,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, THE FRESNO

POLICE DEPARTMENT; and

DEFENDANT OFFICERS DOES 1- 10,

Defendant.

No. 1:15-cv-00710-JAM-BAM

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL AND

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR

MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE 

TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S MAY 

19, 2016 ORDER AND FAILURE TO 

PARTICIPATE IN DISCOVERY

Under the Court’s inherent and statutory authority, including

but not limited to the Court’s authority under the applicable

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States District

Court, Eastern District of California Local Rules; and after

due consideration of all of the relevant pleadings, papers, and

records in this action,

Case 1:15-cv-00710-JAM-BAM Document 46 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 3
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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Defendant City of Fresno's Motion for Dismissal for Failure

to Comply with the Court's May 19, 2016 Order and Failure to

Participate in Discovery is GRANTED.1 The Court hereby

dismisses with prejudice and without leave to amend all of

Plaintiffs’ P.Y.M.T., by and through her guardian ad litem DEIBI 

ONTIVEROS, MIGUEL MORENO TORREZ, and MARIA CARRILLO

(“Plaintiffs”)claims in this action, including:

1. Dismissal with prejudice of the claim for Excessive 

Force against decedent in violation of the Fourth Amendment to 

the U.S. Constitution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiffs 

against Defendant [First Cause of Action];

2. Dismissal with prejudice of the claim for Negligence by 

City in Ratification of Reports & Negligence by City in 

Hiring/Supervision, resulting in deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Due 

Process rights under Cal. Gov. Code § 815.2 by Plaintiffs against 

Defendant [Second Cause of Action];

3. Dismissal with prejudice of the claim for Intentional 

Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) upon decedent by 

Plaintiffs against Defendant [Third Cause of Action];

4. Dismissal with prejudice of the claim for Negligent 

Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) upon Plaintiffs by Doe 

Defendant Officers 1-10 under California law by Plaintiffs 

against Defendant [Fourth Cause of Action];

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 

for September 20, 2016.

Case 1:15-cv-00710-JAM-BAM Document 46 Filed 09/19/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5. Dismissal with prejudice of the claim for Assault upon 

decedent under California law by Plaintiffs against Defendant 

[Fifth Cause of Action];

6. Dismissal with prejudice of the claim for Battery upon 

decedent under California law by Plaintiffs against Defendant 

[Sixth Cause of Action];

7. Dismissal with prejudice of the claim for Negligent 

Medical Care to Prisoner (decedent) under Cal. Gov. Code § 845.6 

by Plaintiffs against Defendant [Seventh Cause of Action];

8. Dismissal with prejudice of the claim for Violation of 

the Bane Act under Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 by Plaintiffs against 

Defendant [Eighth Cause of Action];

9. Dismissal with prejudice of the claim for Wrongful 

Death under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60 by Plaintiffs against 

Defendant [Ninth Cause of Action]; and

10. Defendant’s request for costs in the amount of 

$1,260.12 is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees is 

DENIED. Defendant has failed to provide detailed billing records 

in support of their request. Without such evidence, the Court is 

unable to evaluate the reasonableness of Defendant’s attorneys’ 

fees request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2016

Case 1:15-cv-00710-JAM-BAM Document 46 Filed 09/19/16 Page 3 of 3