ET

E.T. Ex Rel. Dougherty v. George

Good Law
681 F. Supp. 2d 1151·2010 WL 121018·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48908
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 7, 20102:09-cv-01950 FCD DADCalifornia13,035 words

Opinion

Opinion

Damrell, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendants Ronald M. George, William C. Vickrey, and James M. Mize’s (collectively “defendants”) motion to abstain and to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs E.T., K.R., C.B., and G.S., by their next friend, Frank Dougherty, (collectively “plaintiffs”) oppose the motions. On November 6, 2009, the court heard oral argument on defendants’ arguments relating to justiciability. For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of plaintiffs’ allegations that the caseloads in dependency courts in Sacramento County are so excessive that they violate federal and state constitutional and statutory provisions. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that the overburdened dependency court system frustrates both the ability of the courts to adjudicate and provide children with a meaningful opportunity to be heard and the effective, adequate, and competent assistance of counsel. (Compl., filed July 16, 2009.)

A. Dependency Court Proceedings

Dependency proceedings are conducted to protect the safety and well-being of an abused or neglected child whose parents or guardians cannot or will…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.