Roberts

Roberts v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 15, 20232:22-cv-01974California725 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Claudell Roberts, et al., No. 2:22-cv-01974-KJM-AC Plaintiffs, ORDER v. County of Sacramento, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 Plaintiffs Claudell Roberts and his minor son, S.R., bring this civil rights action against defendants Sacramento County and its former Sheriff, Scott Jones. Defendants move to dismiss 19 plaintiffs’ second claim for municipal and supervisory liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As 20 explained below, because plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts to support this claim, defendants’ motion is granted and the second claim is dismissed with leave to amend. The applicable legal standard is well established and need not be reiterated here. Mot. at 3-4, ECF No. 18-1 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007), and Aschroft 24 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-80 (2009)); Opp’n at 4-5, ECF No. 20 (same)). As relevant here, plaintiffs claim Sacramento…

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.