Stewart v. City of Oakland, et al

Filing 59

ORDER GRANTING COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 17, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JULEANA STEWART,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Case No. 17-cv-04478-MMC
ORDER GRANTING COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA'S MOTION TO DISMISS;
VACATING HEARING
Re: Dkt. No. 44

Defendants.

12
13

Before the Court is the County of Alameda's ("County") Motion, filed March 9,

14

2018, "to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Portions of the First

15

Amended Complaint." Plaintiff Juleana Stewart has filed a "Qualified Statement of Non-

16

Opposition," to which the County has replied. Having read and considered the papers

17

filed in support of and in response to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for

18

determination on the parties' written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for

19

April 20, 2018, and rules as follows.

20

In the operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges a single

21

claim against the County, specifically, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed

22

January 18, 2018, the Court dismissed the claim as alleged in the initial complaint, finding

23

plaintiff had failed to "allege facts regarding the specific nature of [any] challenged

24

municipal policy, custom or practice" (see Order, filed January 18, 2018, at 7:20 - 8:3)

25

(internal quotation and citation omitted), and afforded plaintiff leave to amend. In the

26

instant motion, the County contends plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiency identified in

27

the Court's prior order and, consequently, that plaintiff's claim against the County should

28

be dismissed. In her response, plaintiff states she "does not oppose" the County's

1
2
3
4

motion. (See Pl.'s Statement, filed March 23, 2018, at 1:23-24.)1
Accordingly, the County's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and plaintiff's
claim against the County is hereby DISMISSED without further leave to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: April 17, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

1

Plaintiff asserts she has pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim against "Doe"
defendants and requests that the order dismissing the County "make clear" that her
claims against such Doe defendants have not been dismissed. (See id. at 1:25 - 2:1.)
As plaintiff has not identified, let alone served, any Doe defendant and the County has
not appeared on behalf of any Doe, the Court does not address herein the sufficiency of
plaintiff's claims against Doe defendants.
2