Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00520-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA J. FOX, ON BEHALF OF 

HERSELF AND AS NEXT FRIEND TO 

D.M.R., A MINOR,

 Plaintiffs,

 

 vs.

COUNTY OF TULARE, LETICIA 

CASTANEDA, ERICA SOTO, RON 

CASTANEDA, JULIA LANGLEY, CAROL 

HELDING, JOHN ROZUM, STEVEN D. 

RODGERS and DOES 1-100, 

 

 

 Defendants. 

1:11-cv-00520 AWI SMS

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

FOLLOWING PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS 

IN REPSONSE TO COURT’S ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

Doc. # 162

On July 24, 2014, the court issued an order on Defendants’ motions for summary 

judgment or summary adjudication (hereinafter the “July 24 Order”). The July 24 Order 

indicated that the court had preliminarily determined that Plaintiffs’ federal claims pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 were not viable because Plaintiffs failed to allege facts or law to 

show that the conduct alleged by Defendants violated any right guaranteed by the United States 

Constitution or by federal statute. The court noted, however, that the grounds upon which the 

court based its preliminary decision had not been fully briefed by the parties and that an 

opportunity would be given for further briefing to show cause why the court’s preliminary 

Case 1:11-cv-00520-AWI-SMS Document 272 Filed 09/26/14 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-

A

decision should not be made final. Plaintiffs filed their response to the court’s July 24 Order on 

August 7, 2014, and both Defendant parties filed their responses on August 21, 2014.

The court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ response and finds it generally repeats the factual 

assertions set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and reasserts the previouslyrejected contention that the decision of a family court judge allocating physical custody of a 

minor child between biological parents implicates a constitutionally guaranteed right under the 

First and/or Fourteenth Amendments. The court’s July 24 Order noted that the term “custody” 

as used in family law has two aspects; the aspect of the parents’ participation in, and support of, 

the child’s activities, and the aspect of physical custody of the child. As the court endeavored to 

point out, the first aspect is always shared coequally between the biological parents and the 

second aspect is, by physical necessity, apportioned between the biological parents in the “best 

interests of the child.” See Doc. # 266 at 12:9-18. As the court explained, the first aspect has a 

constitutional dimension and the second – the apportionment of the child’s physical custody –

does not. 

Plaintiffs response to the court’s July 24 Order continues to conflate these two aspects in 

order to assert that Plaintiff, as a result of one of the several decisions by the family court, was 

“stripped” of constitutionally protected rights. The court has explained how the allocation of 

physical custody of a child does not implicate a constitutional right of either the parent or the 

child so long as; (1) the right of either parent to participate in support and guidance of the child 

is not impaired, and (2) so long as the decision regarding the physical custody of the child is 

make in respect of adequate due process. The court’s July 24 Decision reviewed the record of 

determinations by the family court and the factual allegations of the parties and determined that 

Plaintiffs were not denied the constitutionally-guaranteed right to participation in each other’s 

lives by any decision of the family court and that the proceedings in the family court satisfied the 

requirements of due process. The court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ response to the July 24 

Order can find no reason to change that determination.

Case 1:11-cv-00520-AWI-SMS Document 272 Filed 09/26/14 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-

A

The court has also reviewed Plaintiffs’ response with regard to their claims under 

theories of state created danger (claim one), conspiracy to interfere with a constitutional right in 

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 on the basis of gender (claim three), and conspiracy to interfere 

with a civil right in violation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1083 (claim four). The court continues 

to find that each of these claims lacks merit for the reasons set forth in its July 24 Order. 

In reviewing the submission of Plaintiffs in response to the court’s July 24 Order, the 

court can find no reason to add to, change, or subtract from that order. The court therefore 

incorporates that order here by reference and now finalizes the order proposed therein.

THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in the court’s July 24 Order, Document Number 

266, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are hereby 

GRANTED. The clerk of the court shall enter judgment as to Plaintiff’s first, second, third and 

fourth claims for relief as to all Defendants. The court hereby DECLINES to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to Rule 1367(c) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the reasons set forth in the court’s July 24 Order. The Clerk 

of the Court shall CLOSE THE CASE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00520-AWI-SMS Document 272 Filed 09/26/14 Page 3 of 3