Ward v. County of San Diego, et al

Filing 22

ORDER Granting Motion To Dismiss And Granting Leave To Amend 15 . Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 3/26/2024. (ddf)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10

WILLIAM HOWARD WARD,
Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal
entity; et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18

I.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 23-cv-1819-BEN (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS AND GRANTING LEAVE
TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff William Howard Ward brings this action against Defendants the County

19
20

of San Diego (the “County”), and unnamed Doe defendants. Before the Court is the

21

County’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. The motion to dismiss is granted without

22

prejudice and Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the Complaint.

23

II.

According to the Complaint, this case arises from events which began on

24
25

BACKGROUND

September 4, 2022. 1 Plaintiff was arrested, but because of his physical and mental

26
27
28

For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court assumes facts pleaded in the
Complaint are true. Mazarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031
(9th Cir. 2008). The Court is not making factual findings.

1

-123-cv-903-BEN (SBC)

1

condition, he was first taken to a hospital. Following hospital treatment, Plaintiff was

2

placed in a jail operated by the County of San Diego. While a pre-trial detainee in the

3

jail, Plaintiff alleges he suffered physical and mental injuries in violation of his

4

constitutional rights. He now sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting claims for relief

5

against the County of San Diego and 50 unnamed Doe defendants.

6

The County moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil

7

Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend his Complaint. The County

8

objects to the procedure, noting it would have agreed to the filing of an amended

9

complaint had Plaintiff asked, but it does not object to the Plaintiff amending his

10

Complaint. See Reply in Supp. of Def’s Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt 20, at 1.

11

III.

12

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a court should freely give leave

13

to amend a complaint when justice requires. Here, it is too late for Plaintiff to amend as

14

of right, but justice requires leave to amend be granted in view of the Defendant’s non-

15

opposition. Therefore, without addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s proposed

16

amendments, Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint.

17

IV.

CONCLUSION

18

1. The motion to dismiss is granted, without prejudice.

19

2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, within 21 days of this Order.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED:

March 26, 2024

HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

23-cv-903-BEN (SBC)