Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sconiers v. California Dep't of Social Services

December 16, 2008

JANETTA SCONIERS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S THIRD-AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(Documents #47, 48 & #54)

This case comes before the court on defendants Fresno County In Home Supportive Service's ("Fresno IHSS"), Julie Hornback's ("Hornback"), Nellie Go's ("Go"), and Valley Family Medical Center's ("VFMC") (collectively as "Defendants") motions to dismiss Plaintiff Janetta Sconier's third-amended complaint and motion for temporary restraining order.*fn1 For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motions to dismiss will be granted.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the underlying complaint in this court after the termination of her In Home Supportive Services benefits ("In Home Benefits"). The In Home Benefits program is a statewide mandated program administered by each county under the director of the California Department of Social Services ("DSS"). In Home Benefits provides those with limited income who are disabled, blind or over the age of 65 with in-home care services to help them remain safely in their own homes. Plaintiff received In Home Benefits from approximately June 2004 to August 2005.

On May 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed a 290 page second-amended complaint against seventeen parties (some in both their individual and official capacities) with fifty-four causes of action.

On June 3, 2008, defendant Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center ("FCH") filed a motion to dismiss.

On June 11, 2008, defendants Go and VFMC filed a motion to dismiss. FCH's, Go's, and VFMC's motions were filed pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1).*fn2

On July 1, 2008 and July 10, 2008, Plaintiff filed oppositions.

On September 11, 2008, this court issued an order ("September 11 Order") granting in part and denying in part FCH's, Go's, and VFMC's motions to dismiss.*fn3 (Document #42.) The September 11 Order granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in compliance with the rulings of the September 11 Order and in compliance with Rule 8 (September 11 Order at page 14.) The September 11 Order directed Plaintiff to comply with Rule 8(a) by including "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. The September 11 Order directed Plaintiff to comply with Rule 8(d) by ensuring that each allegation was simple, concise and direct. Id. Plaintiff was also directed to avoid unnecessarily repetitive and lengthy statements. Id.

On November 20, 2008, Plaintiff filed a 828*fn4 page third-amended complaint ("Complaint") with fifty-three causes of action and a separate 149 page motion for a temporary restraining order.

On November 21, 2008, the court issued an order granting Defendants permission to file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. (Document # 50.)

On December 2, 2008, defendants Fresno IHSS and Hornback filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. On December 3, 2008, defendants Go and VFMC filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order.

Plaintiff's Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from the termination of Plaintiff's In Home Benefits and actual and punitive damages totaling $45 million. Plaintiff appears to allege causes of action for denial of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, violations of the California Constitution, the California Civil Code, and various other state and federal statutes. Plaintiff also alleges that various defendants unlawfully ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.