Meniooh v. State of California et al

Filing 58

ORDER DIRECTING COUNTY TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 9/22/2016. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

RATA BEY MENIOOH,

14

ORDER DIRECTING COUNTY TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C16-00715 CRB

v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,
Defendants.

15

/

16
17

The County Defendants previously moved to dismiss this case. See generally County

18

Mot. (dkt. 17).1 The Court held that the original complaint failed to state a claim upon which

19

relief could be granted as to the County Defendants, and directed Plaintiff Rata Bey Meniooh

20

to file an amended complaint, explaining that it would issue a further order upon amendment.

21

See Order Dismissing (dkt. 52) at 2. Plaintiff has timely amended his complaint. See FAC.

22

The First Amended Complaint brings thirteen claims, arising under state and federal

23

law. Id. ¶¶ 69–106. It also attaches eleven exhibits, some of which shed some light on

24

Plaintiff’s allegations—for example, they include a Complaint in Superior Court accusing

25

Plaintiff of willfully and unlawfully driving when his license was suspended or revoked, an

26

arrest warrant from the Arcata Police Department, and an inmate grievance form asserting

27
28

1

Originally, the County Defendants were the County of Humboldt and Michael T. Downey. See
Compl. (dkt. 1) ¶¶ 17, 19. The County Defendants are now Humboldt County, Humboldt County
Sheriff’s Office, Michael T. Downey, Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office, Maggie Fleming,
L. Myers, Brent K., Whitney Bares, Max Cardoza and Roger Rees. See FAC (dkt. 55) ¶¶ 10–20.

1

that a Sheriff’s deputy assaulted Plaintiff and violated his First Amendment rights at the

2

Humboldt County Correction Facility. Id. Exs. A, B, F. The Court now DIRECTS the

3

County Defendants to respond to the FAC within twenty-one (21) days of this Order.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 22, 2016
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2