Ortiz v. County of Trinity

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Jessica Ortiz, et al., No. 2:21-cv-02248-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 Vv. County of Trinity, et al. 1S Defendants. 16 17 The court has reviewed the parties’ briefing regarding defendants’ second motion to 18 | dismiss plaintiffs’ Monell and supervisory liability claims against the County of Trinity and 19 | Sheriff Saxon under § 1983. See Mot., ECF No. 34; Opp’n, ECF No. 35; Reply, ECF No. 37. 20 | For the reasons below, the court directs the parties to file supplemental briefing on the 21 | constitutional violation issue, 1.e., whether plaintiffs sufficiently allege Fourteenth Amendment 22 | state-created danger claims under § 1983. 23 As the previous presiding judge set out in the order granting defendants’ first motion to 24 | dismiss, a municipality is liable under § 1983 when a constitutional violation can be attributed to 25 | its “policy or custom.” Prev. Order at 5, ECF 24 (citing Monell v. New York City Dept. of Soc. 26 | Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)). Relatedly, a supervisor can be liable under § 1983 based on 27 | personal participation in a constitutional violation. /d. at 6 (citing Watkins v. City of Oakland, 28 | 145 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir. 1998)). With respect to the pending motion, the parties discuss

1 extensively whether the county had a “policy or custom” and whether Sheriff Saxon participated 2 in a constitutional violation. See Mot.; Opp’n; Reply. But neither party has discussed whether a 3 constitutional violation has occurred in the first instance, as required for both Monell and 4 supervisory liability claims. See id. Given the unique facts of this case, the court finds it would 5 benefit from supplemental briefing on the constitutional violation issue. 6 The court orders the following: 7  Defendants shall file a supplemental brief of no more than ten pages addressing the 8 constitutional violation issue by December 2, 2022. 9  Plaintiffs shall file an opposition brief of no more than ten pages by December 16, 10 2022. 11  Defendants may file a reply of no more than five pages by December 23, 2022. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: November 14, 2022.