Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01466/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01466-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THELMA ANDERSON,

NO. CIV. S-07-1466 LKK/DAD 

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The court has received the defendants’ motion to dismiss the

plaintiff’s Complaint and the plaintiff’s response thereto. As

explained below, the court grants the motion.

The plaintiff’s complaint alleges the defendants acted

unlawfully in their treatment of her son, who was in custody at

High Desert State Prison. He was found dead there on February 22,

2006. The plaintiff alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for

wrongful death. She brings her claims individually and as the

successor in interest to her son.

The defendant correctly asserts that the plaintiff’s claims

are inadequately pled. First, she has not alleged that she is the

Case 2:07-cv-01466-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 02/15/08 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

2

lawful successor in interest of her son’s estate. See Cal. Code

Civ. P. § 377.32; Coates v. K-Mart Corp., 215 Cal. App. 3d 961

(1989). Second, in her claim brought in her individual capacity,

she alleges that the defendants violated her Eighth Amendment

rights. She does not, however, allege facts to substantiate this

claim. If her intent was to plead that the defendants interfered

with the companionship and society of the decedent, this is not

properly pled under the Eighth Amendment. See Smith v. City of

Fontana, 818 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987). Finally, the plaintiff has

not pled in her wrongful death claim that she is a proper plaintiff

under California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60. See Von Batsch

v. American Dist. Tele. Co., 175 Cal. App. 3d 1111, 1119 (1985).

In her opposition, the plaintiff does not dispute these

deficiencies and states that they can be remedied in an amended

complaint. Therefore, the defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The

plaintiff is given 45 days from the date of this order to file an

amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 14, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01466-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 2