Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02232/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02232-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

----oo0oo---- 

LAWRENCE SPIES, SR., et al.; 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

EL DORADO COUNTY, et al.; 

Defendants. 

CIV. NO. 2:16-02232 WBS GGH 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS 

----oo0oo---- 

 Before the court is the motion defendants Dr. John 

Skratt, Dr. Alexis Lieser, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss plaintiffs’ first and third causes 

of action for Eighth Amendment and substantive due process 

violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against them because the 

Complaint does not allege that they are state actors. (See 

Defs.’ Mot. 6:21-7:3 (Docket No. 30-1)). 1

 1

 Dr. Skratt and Dr. Lieser also moved to dismiss the 

medical malpractice claim for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. (See Defs.’ Mot. 9:1-10:4.) However, they 

withdrew this portion of the motion in light of the court’s 

Case 2:16-cv-02232-WBS-GGH Document 35 Filed 01/18/17 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 

 The Complaint contains only conclusory allegations that 

Dr. Skratt and Dr. Lieser were “acting within the course and 

scope of th[eir] employment and under color of law.” (Compl. ¶¶ 

27-28.) Plaintiffs fail to include any factual allegations that 

they were state actors and rely solely on these conclusory 

statements. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). 

Moreover, in light of information that plaintiffs received from 

defendant El Dorado County, plaintiffs do not oppose defendants’ 

motion to dismiss their § 1983 claims against Dr. Skratt and Dr. 

Lieser. (Pls.’ Opp’n 7:4-5 (Docket No. 32).) 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to dismiss 

plaintiffs’ first and third causes of action for Eighth Amendment 

and substantive due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as 

against Dr. Skratt and Dr. Lieser be, and the same hereby is, 

GRANTED. 

Dated: January 17, 2017 

 

 

previous order finding there was supplemental jurisdiction over 

the medical malpractice claim. (See Defs.’ Reply 2:1-5 (Docket 

No. 33).) 

Case 2:16-cv-02232-WBS-GGH Document 35 Filed 01/18/17 Page 2 of 2