Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01099/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01099-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEANU ETHAN CAMPOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-01099-DAD-JLT

ORDER DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF 

ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

(Doc. No. 36)

The operative pleading in this action is plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on 

October 9, 2014. (Doc. No. 19). The first cause of action in that amended complaint purports to 

be a survivorship action for a civil rights violation (id. at 5-8), while the second cause of action 

purports to be for wrongful death based upon a civil rights violation. (Id. at 8-9.) The defendants 

filed a motion for summary judgment on February 10, 2016. (Doc. No. 36.) In their motion, 

defendants purport to move for summary judgment in their favor as to both causes of action. 

The court has determined that the issues raised by the pending summary judgment motion 

require additional briefing with respect to plaintiff’s wrongful death claim. In their motion, 

defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff’s wrongful 

death claim. (Doc. No. 36-1 at 14.) They based their argument on a claimed entitlement to 

immunity under California Government Code § 844.6(a)(2) and plaintiff’s alleged violation of 

Case 1:14-cv-01099-DAD-JLT Document 44 Filed 03/17/16 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

California’s “one action rule” for wrongful death actions. (Id.) Defendants do not appear to 

have addressed, or moved for summary judgment in their favor on, the merits of plaintiff’s

wrongful death claim. In their opposition papers, plaintiff argued that the “one action rule” does 

not require the court to dismiss the wrongful death action in this case. (Doc. No. 37 at 16–17.) In 

their reply defendants withdrew their argument for summary judgment on the second cause of 

action based upon the “one action rule.” (Doc. No. 41 at 10.) 

The court seeks clarification as to the basis for defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

as to plaintiff’s wrongful death claim. Is defendants’ motion now based solely on a claimed 

entitlement to immunity under California Government Code § 844.6(a)(2) and not on the merits 

of that claim based upon evidence presented on summary judgment? In order to assist resolution 

of the pending motion, the court directs defendants and plaintiff to file supplemental briefing with 

respect to this issue.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above:

1. Defendants are directed to file a brief clarifying their position on summary judgment as 

to plaintiff’s wrongful death claim, within seven days of this order. Defendants’ brief may be no 

longer than five pages in length.

2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file, at their election, an opposition brief to defendants’ 

supplemental brief, within fourteen days of this order. Plaintiff’s brief may be no longer than five 

pages in length.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01099-DAD-JLT Document 44 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 2