Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00697/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00697-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CATHERINE BRYAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv697-LAB (BLM)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

vs. SUPPLEMENT MOTIONS

CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Catherine Bryan filed two motions, a motion to supplement her complaint and

a motion to add new Defendants. On review, it appears Bryan wants to add a claim against

Carlsbad city council members who, she says, are acquiescing in the City’s unconstitutional

action. Although her proposed supplemental complaint mentions a conspiracy, the only

overt act they are accused of is failing to act in response to a demand letter she sent them.

(Docket no. 29-1, ¶¶ 6–7, 9, 10.) 

What is unclear is what Bryan thinks the council members individually or collectively

should have done. If she is arguing they should have taken action collectively as a council,

or individually as council members, they are immune from suit. See Bogan v. Scott-Harris,

523 U.S. 44, 54–56 (1998) (city council members were absolutely immune from suit under

§ 1983 for legislative acts). If she believes they were acting (or failing to act) in some other

capacity, she does not say what that was. And the lack of an explanation of what they should

have done makes it impossible to infer.

- 1 - 17cv697

Case 3:17-cv-00697-LAB-BLM Document 31 Filed 08/08/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

No later than August 18, 2017, Bryan should file a supplement to her two motions

explaining what the proposed new Defendants should have done, and in what capacity they

should have acted. The supplement should not be longer than two pages. 

If Bryan does not provide a satisfactory explanation as directed, the motions may be

denied summarily. This order does not suspend the normal briefing schedule, and

Defendants should not wait for an order from the Court before filing their oppositions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 7, 2017

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 17cv697

Case 3:17-cv-00697-LAB-BLM Document 31 Filed 08/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2