Hubbard v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 19

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 12 Motion to Dismiss (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2013)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

KEAREAN HUBBARD,

7
8
9

v.

No. C 12-6380 PJH
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12

Defendants County of Sonoma and Steve Freitas’s (“the County defendants”) motion

13

to dismiss the first three causes of action of plaintiff’s first amended complaint came on for

14

hearing before this court on March 6, 2013. Plaintiff Kearean Hubbard (“plaintiff”) appeared

15

through her counsel, Charles Applegate and Michael Scott. The County defendants

16

appeared through their counsel, Terry Sterling. Having read the papers filed in conjunction

17

with the motion and carefully considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority,

18

and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the County defendants’ motion, for

19

the reasons stated at the hearing, and summarized as follows.

20

In their motion, the County defendants argued that, in order to assert a section 1983

21

claim against a public entity (such as the County of Sonoma), plaintiff is required to allege

22

that the constitutional violation was the result of the government’s established policy or

23

practice. Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). And in order to

24

assert a section 1983 claim against an individual government employee, plaintiff is required

25

to allege that the employee participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the

26

violations and failed to act to prevent them. See, e.g., Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045

27

(9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion. The court agrees that

28

plaintiff’s section 1983 claims (the first, second, and third causes of action in the first

1

amended complaint) do not meet the relevant pleading standards, and hereby DISMISSES

2

them with leave to amend.

3

While plaintiff did not oppose the motion, she did file an amended complaint, styled

4

as the “second amended complaint,” on March 5, 2013 (i.e., the day before the scheduled

5

hearing on the County defendants’ motion). Plaintiff was not entitled to file this second

6

amended complaint under the federal rules, which allow a party to “amend its pleading

7

once as a matter of course.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) (emphasis added). Plaintiff had

8

already filed a first amended complaint (which was the subject of this motion) on January

9

23, 2013. Thus, the second amended complaint (Dkt. 16) is hereby STRICKEN.
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint (which shall be styled as the “revised

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

second amended complaint”) in accordance with this order by April 3, 2013. No new

12

claims or parties may be added without leave of court or agreement of the parties.

13

Defendants shall have until April 24, 2013 to answer or otherwise respond to the

14

complaint. Plaintiff is further cautioned that, if she wishes to assert section 1983 claims

15

against the County or its employees, she must comply with the relevant pleading standards

16

for those claims. She may not simply include those defendants as “Doe” defendants in an

17

effort to evade the applicable pleading standards.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 6, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2