Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00712/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00712-1/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Hearing on the 

motion to dismiss is set for September 12, 2016. The Court has reviewed the papers and has 

determined that this matter is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g). 

Additionally, on August 29, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an opposition, and on September 2, 2016, 

Defendants filed a reply. On September 6, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a request to consider recent 

authority. See Doc. No. 16. The recent authority is an order on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion from the 

Central District of California. See id. The order involves similar issues to those raised in this case 

and was issued on August 30, 2016. See id. The Court will consider the recent decision from the 

Central District, and will give Defendants the opportunity to respond.1 If Defendants respond to 

the recent authority, and if the Court determines that a hearing would be beneficial, then the Court 

will set a new hearing date at that time. Otherwise, there will be no hearing on Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss. 

 

1

 By granting Plaintiffs’ request, the Court is expressing no opinion as to the merits of Defendants’ motion or to the 

persuasive value, if any, of the Central District’s order. 

MELISSA M. NEYLON and SHAWN P. 

NEYLON, 

Plaintiffs 

v. 

COUNTY OF INYO, INYO COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S OFFICE, BILL LUTZE, 

DOUGLAS RICHARDS, and DOES 1 to 

50, 

Defendants 

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00712 AWI JLT 

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST 

TO CONSIDER RECENT AUTHORITY 

(Doc. No. 16) 
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 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The September 12, 2016 hearing date on Defendants’ motion to dismiss is VACATED; 

2. Plaintiff’s request to consider recent authority is GRANTED; and 

3. If Defendants desire to respond to the recent authority identified by Plaintiffs, then 

Defendants may file a response on or by 4:00 p.m. on September 9, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 6, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE