Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04959/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04959-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RIANA BUFFIN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-04959-YGR 

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 63, 69 

Plaintiffs,1 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this civil rights 

action against the City and County of San Francisco (the “City”) for claims arising from their postarrest detention at the City’s jail. Specifically, plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 

against the City for violation of their Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process 

rights, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons. 

The named plaintiffs additionally seek monetary damages, attorney fees, and costs. 

The Court previously granted the City’s motion for a more definite statement under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).2

 The Court found that plaintiffs’ original complaint was “in key 

respects, fundamentally unclear, and the City [was] entitled to know what [p]laintiffs’ claim is 

before it should be required to respond to it.” (Dkt. No. 55 at 8:9-10.) The Court identified 

“analytical, legal, and factual gaps in plaintiffs’ allegations and requests for relief [that] render[ed] 

 1

 All terms shall have the same meaning as defined in the Court’s prior omnibus order. 

(Dkt. No. 55.) 

2

 In that order, the Court also held that: (i) the State was immune from suit under the 

Eleventh Amendment, dismissing the State as a defendant; and (ii) abstention under the Younger 

doctrine was not warranted. (See Dkt. No. 55.)

Case 4:15-cv-04959-YGR Document 70 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

the complaint unintelligible.” (Id.at 9:22-23.) Based thereon, plaintiffs were directed to file an 

amended complaint to address the many issues identified by the Court. 

 Currently pending before the Court is the City’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second 

amended complaint (“SAC”)3

 under Rule 12(b)(6) or in the alternative for a more definite 

statement under Rule 12(e). (Dkt. No. 63.) The City principally argues that the SAC fails to state a 

claim against it as a municipal entity under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 as announced by the United 

States Supreme Court in Monell v. Dep’t. of Social Serv’s of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 

(1978). With respect to its alternative motion under Rule 12(e), the City argues that the SAC does 

not cure the deficiencies identified by the Court in its prior order and continues to be ambiguous as 

to the basis for the legal claim and the relief plaintiffs seek. 

 Plaintiffs oppose, contending that they have not only stated a claim under Monell, but that 

the SAC also alleges a cognizable theory of liability against the City under Ex Parte Young, 209 

U.S. 123 (1908). In reply, the City implicitly concedes that plaintiffs could potentially state 

cognizable Section 1983 claims against it and/or individual actors for the alleged constitutional 

violations at issue under Monell and Ex Parte Young, but argues that the SAC fails to do so. 

 Plaintiffs then filed a motion for leave to file a surreply. (Dkt. No. 69.) The proposed 

surreply in part requests leave to file a third amended complaint so that plaintiffs may cure the 

issues raised by the City in its motion to dismiss and reply thereto. (See Dkt. No. 69-1.) Surreplies 

are disfavored and the Court routinely rejects them. Given that plaintiffs’ surreply requests leave to 

amend to cure valid concerns raised by the City, however, the Court will allow it in this narrow 

instance to promote judicial efficiency. The Court need not waste resources addressing the City’s 

arguments when the Court anticipates that the proposed amendments largely could resolve the 

City’s concerns. The motion to file a surreply is therefore GRANTED IN PART to allow plaintiffs to 

file only the portion of the surreply containing the request for leave to amend. 

 Plaintiffs shall file a third amended complaint no later than May 27, 2016. 

 3

 By agreement of the parties, the City did not respond to plaintiffs’ first amended 

complaint and plaintiffs instead filed the SAC. (See Dkt. No. 61.) 

Case 4:15-cv-04959-YGR Document 70 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

 In light of the forthcoming filing of a third amended complaint, the City’s motion to dismiss 

or for a more definite statement (Dkt. No. 63) is DENIED AS MOOT. The hearing set for May 10, 

2016 is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 63, 69.

Date: May 6, 2016 

 

_______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-04959-YGR Document 70 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 3