Daniels v. City and County of San Francisco

Filing 36

ORDER screening 35 Fourth Amended Complaint, filed by Scott Daniels. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/4/2018. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SCOTT DANIELS,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

Case No. 17-cv-05914-MEJ
ORDER SCREENING FOURTH
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Re: Dkt. No. 35

10

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13

Defendant previously moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on the ground it

14

was filed “more than two years after the incident giving rise to the suit, which is alleged to have

15

occurred on October 15, 2015.” Mot. at 2, Dkt. No. 26; see also id. at 5 (“Here, in all three of his

16

Complaints, Plaintiff alleged that the subject incident giving rise to this lawsuit occurred on

17

October 15, 2015.”). In a supplemental brief, Plaintiff argued the incident had occurred on

18

October 16, 2015, not on October 15, 2015 as he had previously alleged. See Suppl. Mot., Dkt.

19

No. 33. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, but granted Plaintiff leave to amend

20

the pleadings if he could allege the incident in fact had occurred within the two-year statute of

21

limitations, or could allege facts showing equitable tolling should apply. MTD Order, Dkt. No.

22

34.
Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, which is identical to his Third Amended

23
24

Complaint except that it (1) alleges the date of the incident is October 16, 2015 (4AC, Dkt. No.

25

35), and (2) attaches SFPD reports showing the date of the incident was recorded by SFPD as

26

October 16, 2015 (id., Exs. 1-2).1

27
1

28

The Court recognizes the Motion was based on Plaintiff’s allegations; however, official
documents stating the date of the incident was within the two-year statute of limitations were in

1

The Court incorporates its Order Screening Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 25) as

2

though fully set forth herein. Defendant shall respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint no later

3

than two weeks from the date of this Order.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7
8

Dated: June 4, 2018
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

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

Defendant’s possession at the time it filed the Motion. Defendant accordingly knew or should
have known the allegations were incorrect, and that their statute of limitations argument was
premised on factually incorrect information. The Court is concerned that Defendant is not taking
either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 or its duty of candor to the Court as seriously as it should.
See also Civ. L.R. 11-4(a)(4) (requiring attorneys to “[p]ractice with the honesty, care, and
decorum required for the fair and efficient administration of justice”).
2