Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02530/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02530-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Roche
Defendant
David Runnels
Defendant
Victoria Wright
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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----

VICTORIA WRIGHT,

NO. 2:05-cv-2530-MCE-PAN (JFM)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

DAVID RUNNELS, Warden,

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON -

SUSANVILLE; MICHAEL ROCHE,

M.D.; and DOES 1 to 10,

inclusive,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Victoria Wright brings the present action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on grounds that Defendants acted with

“deliberate indifference” to the serious medical needs of her

husband. She alleges that such indifference led to the death of

her husband, Jay Wright, some eight days after he was admitted to

the High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California.

Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on

grounds that the § 1983 claims she attempts to assert are

Case 2:05-cv-02530-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 04/28/06 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

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).

2

personal rights belonging to her deceased husband rather than to

her. According to Defendants, while Plaintiff may be entitled to

maintain her lawsuit in a representational capacity following her

husband death pursuant to California’s survival statute, Code of

Civil Procedure § 377.30 (see Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police

Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1998), the Complaint as

presently framed is improper because it is made solely on her

individual behalf. Defendants consequently move to dismiss

Plaintiff’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

and 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,

Given that non-opposition, and good cause appearing therefor

based on the arguments articulated by Defendants, Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED, with leave to amend.1

Plaintiff may file an amended pleading not later than twenty (20)

days following the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 28, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02530-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 04/28/06 Page 2 of 2