Telles v. City of Waterford et al

Filing 56

ORDER GRANTING Motions of Plaintiff and City of Waterford to Dismiss (Docs. 37 and 54 ) signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/18/2012. Defendants City of Waterford, Letras, Longoria, Petit, Moreno and Sigala are dismissed. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF WATERFORD, COUNTY OF )
STANISLAUS, STANISLAUS COUNTY )
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, and
)
SHERIFFS DEPUTIES MOSS, LETRAS,)
LONGORIA, PETTIT, KIRKBRIDE,
)
MORENO, SIGALA, and WILSON,
)
each in their individual and official
)
capacities, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
HENRY WILLIAM TELLES, SR,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

1:10-cv-0982 AWI SKO

ORDER GRANTING
MOTIONS OF PLAINTIFF
AND CITY OF WATERFORD
TO DISMISS
Doc’s # 37 and 54

18
19

This is an action for violation of civil rights under the Fourth Amendment pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 1983. The currently-operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) was filed on

21

October 26, 2011. Currently before the court is a motion by City of Waterford to dismiss the

22

TAC as to it pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that was filed on

23

November 9, 2011. Also before the court is a motion by plaintiff Henry William Telles

24

(“Plaintiff”) to “Dismiss Certain Parties,” which was filed on March 26, 2012.

25

As to Defendant City of Waterford, Plaintiff’s TAC omits any allegations against it. City

26

of Waterford states in its motion to dismiss that the motion is made “in an abundance of

27

caution.” Plaintiff’s motion to “Dismiss Certain Parties” seeks voluntary dismissal of all

28

Defendants EXCEPT Defendants County of Stanislaus, Stanislaus Sheriffs Department and

1

Stanislaus County Sheriffs Deputies Kirkbride and Wilson. Based on Plaintiffs’ Motion to

2

Dismiss Certain Parties, the court concludes City of Waterford’s motion to dismiss is unopposed.

3

The court also notes it has received no opposition as to Plaintiffs motion to dismiss all individual

4

Defendants except Kirkbride and Wilson and therefore concludes Plaintiff’s motion is also

5

unopposed. The court will therefore grant both motions to dismiss.

6
7

THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion

8

of Defendant City of Waterford is hereby GRANTED. City of Waterford is hereby DISMISSED

9

with prejudice as to all claims set forth in the TAC. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Certain Parties

10

is also hereby GRANTED. Individual Defendants Letras, Longoria, Petit, Moreno and Sigala are

11

each hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as to all claims set forth in the TAC.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated:
0m8i78

April 18, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2