Johnson v. City and County of San Francisco
Filing
26
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 11 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/27/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
DANIEL W. JOHNSON,
Case No. 16-cv-02913-SI
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
Re: Dkt. No. 11
Defendant.
12
13
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is scheduled for a hearing on October 7,
14
2016. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is appropriate for
15
resolution without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS defendant’s
16
motion and GRANTS leave to amend the complaint. The amended complaint must be filed no
17
later than October 14, 2016.
18
19
BACKGROUND
20
Plaintiff, who is acting in pro per, filed this case against the City and County of San
21
Francisco on February 26, 2015, in the Superior Court of California in the County of San
22
Francisco. Dkt. No. 1-1. The original complaint, which was a state form complaint, alleged claims
23
for wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In an attachment to the
24
original complaint, plaintiff alleged that he was “wrongfully terminated because he filed a
25
California worker’s compensation claim after being wounded by a 22 caliber rifle while working
26
for the City and County of San Francisco, California on 6-17-2011.”
27
On September 4, 2015, the City filed a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint, and on January 6,
28
2016, the state court sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend. Dkt. Nos. 1-2, 1-6. On
1
March 15, 2016, the City filed an ex parte application for entry of judgment. Dkt. No. 1-8. The
2
court denied the City’s application, and instead granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.
3
On April 20, 2016, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleging a claim
4
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dkt. No. 1-17. On May 31, 2016, the City filed a
5
notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. Dkt. No. 1. Now before the Court is
6
defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
7
8
LEGAL STANDARD
“After the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may
10
move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). “Judgment on the pleadings is
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material
12
issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Hal
13
Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989). “For
14
purposes of the motion, the allegations of the non-moving party must be accepted as true, while
15
the allegations of the moving party which have been denied are assumed to be false.” Id.
16
Motions under Rule 12(c) are “functionally identical” to motions under Rule 12(b)(6).
17
Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir.
18
2011). Thus, to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a plaintiff must allege “enough
19
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
20
544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility” standard requires the plaintiff to allege facts that add up
21
to “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
22
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While courts do not require “heightened fact pleading of specifics,” a
23
plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
24
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570. The court is not required to accept as true “allegations that are
25
merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead
26
Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, courts
27
may consider only “the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, and
28
2
1
matters of which the court may take judicial notice.” Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges,
2
Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008).
3
If the court dismisses the complaint, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend.
4
The Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no
5
request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly
6
be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000)
7
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
8
DISCUSSION
9
Defendant argues that the FAC fails to state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Act because the FAC does not allege any facts in support of that claim. In response, plaintiff
12
asserts that the FAC meets federal pleading standards and that defendant is aware of the
13
underlying facts in this case. Plaintiff’s opposition also includes some facts that are not contained
14
in the FAC, including the allegation that plaintiff was shot while performing work as a painter for
15
the City and that he was then diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. Plaintiff’s opposition
16
also alleges that plaintiff lost his job “as a result of this work-related injury.” Dkt. No. 24 at 3.
17
The Court concludes that the FAC fails to state a claim under the Americans with
18
Disabilities Act. The FAC is a state form complaint that contains no attachments or statement of
19
facts in support of plaintiff’s claim. The FAC does not allege how the City violated the ADA (or
20
any other law). Although plaintiff includes some facts in his opposition to defendant’s motion, the
21
Court’s review is limited to the face of the complaint. Moreover, the facts included in the
22
opposition are, on their own, insufficient to state a claim because plaintiff does not allege what the
23
City did to violate the law.
24
In light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will grant plaintiff leave to amend the
25
complaint. If plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint, plaintiff must set forth the following in the
26
amended complaint: (1) the specific actions by the City that plaintiff is challenging; (2) the dates
27
those actions occurred; (3) the legal basis for each claim (for example, plaintiff must identify the
28
statute that is the basis of his claim); and (4) the facts in support of each claim.
3
1
For assistance in complying with this order, plaintiff may wish to consult a manual the
2
Court has adopted to assist pro se litigants in presenting their case. This manual, and other free
3
information, is available online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants.
4
contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk—a free service for pro se litigants— by calling
5
(415) 782-8982 to make an appointment to have any remaining questions answered.
Plaintiff may also
6
CONCLUSION
7
8
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion and GRANTS
9
plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. The amended complaint must be filed no later than
10
October 14, 2016.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
15
16
Dated: September 27, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?