Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02530/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02530-1/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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTORIA WRIGHT, et al.,

2:05-cv-2530-MCE-PAN (DAD)

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID RUNNELS, Warden,

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON -

SUSANVILLE; MICHAEL ROCHE,

M.D.; and DOES 1 - 10,

inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Victoria Wright brings the present action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the ground that Defendants David Runnels

and Michael Roche were deliberately indifferent to the medical

needs of her husband in violation of his constitutional rights.1

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ indifference led

to her husband’s untimely death while incarcerated.

Case 2:05-cv-02530-MCE -EFB Document 15 Filed 08/24/06 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

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s original Complaint

on the ground that her claims are personal rights belonging only

to the decedent rather than to Plaintiff herself. The Court

agreed with Defendants and dismissed her Complaint for lack of

standing but permitted Plaintiff leave to amend. See Mem. &

Order, p. 1-2, April 28, 2006. Plaintiff did amend her Complaint

naming the Estate of Jay Wright as an additional Plaintiff. 

Defendants now seek dismissal on the ground that the Estate is

not a legal entity and, therefore, has no capacity to sue.

Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Given that non-opposition, and based on the arguments articulated

by Defendants, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED,

with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file an amended pleading not

later than twenty (20) days following the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 23, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02530-MCE -EFB Document 15 Filed 08/24/06 Page 2 of 2