IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 20, 2012
JOHN AND KATHRYN CLARK, PLAINTIFFS,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, TERI A. KANEFIELD, ESQ., IN HER CAPACITY AS COUNSEL APPOINTED BY THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ANN EDWARDS AS DIRECTOR OF THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, AND DOES 1 THROUGH XXX, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Defendant Teri Kanefield ("Defendant") seeks an order dismissing Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against her, arguing "a court appointed attorney does not act under color of state law for purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action." (Def.'s Mot. 2:2-4.) Plaintiffs made a statement of non-opposition to this dismissal motion in the filed "stipulation to dismiss federal action without prejudice to plaintiffs filing state court action[;]" specifically, Plaintiffs state in that filing that Defendant's "pending Motion to Dismiss . . . is well taken, and will not be opposed by Plaintiffs." (ECF No. 11.)
Therefore, Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim against Defendant is dismissed. Plaintiffs are granted fourteen (14) days from the date on which this order is filed to file a First Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies in its § 1983 claim against Defendant.
Plaintiffs are warned that a dismissal with prejudice could be entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint within the prescribed time period.