Flores v. Alameda County Sheriff's Department

Filing 18

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting County of Alameda's 14 Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRISTOPHER ROBERT FLORES,

Case No. 15-cv-03515-KAW

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S MOTION
TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT,

Re: Dkt. No. 14

Defendant.

12
13

On July 30, 2015, Plaintiff Christopher Robert Flores filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

14

§ 1983 against Defendant County of Alameda (sued erroneously as the “Alameda County Sheriff’s

15

Department”) and Does 1-10. Therein, Plaintiff alleges that, following his arrest on or about July

16

6, 2015, he was transported to Santa Rita Jail, where he informed two Sheriff’s Deputies that he

17

had a seizure condition that required twice daily medication, but was told that there was no nurse

18

on duty. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 8-11.) Plaintiff claims that, despite making numerous requests, he

19

was not provided anti-seizure medication until he suffered a grand mal seizure while in custody.

20

(Compl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff’s complaint consists of two causes of action, one of which is against the

21

County and the other against the doe defendants.

22

On November 3, 2015, Defendant County of Alameda filed a motion to dismiss the first

23

cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts establishing a plausible

24

Monell claim against the County of Alameda. (Def.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 14 at 1.)

25

On November 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response in which he conceded that the cause of

26

action against Defendant County of Alameda should be dismissed and the County should no

27

longer be a party to this action. (Pl.’s Resp., Dkt. No. 17 at 1-2.) Plaintiff asked that the Court’s

28

order dismissing the County should reflect that Plaintiff will require the County’s cooperation with

1

discovery. Id. at 2. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, specifically address how to

2

engage in discovery with non-parties, so the Court is confident that Plaintiff will avail himself of

3

the methods available. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Moreover, to the extent that the County will be

4

representing the Doe Sheriff’s deputies, the Court has no basis to believe that an order requiring

5

the County to cooperate in discovery is necessary.

6

Accordingly, the Court deems this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument

7

pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS with prejudice Defendant County of Alameda’s

8

motion to dismiss the first cause of action.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 9, 2015
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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
2