Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01264/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01264-10/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 The plaintiff has previously filed a motion to add the City of Fresno Police Department as a Defendant on 1

March 16, 2007. (Doc. 15). That motion was denied. (Doc. 16).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP SANDERS, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

OFFICER RUIZ and OFFICER BISHOP )

OF THE FRESNO CITY POLICE )

DEPARTMENT, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:06-cv-01264 OWW GSA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO ADD CITY OF FRESNO AS A

DEFENDANT

(Document 43)

Introduction

On January 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to Consider City of

Fresno as a Defendant under et. al.”(Document 43). The Court construes this motion as a 1

motion to amend the complaint. For the reason set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion consists of one sentence which states as follows: “Court Memo, motion

to add city of Fresno as a defendant so that city damage claim’s filed will be considered.” pg. 1:

17-12. Attached to the motion are two copies of the same letter from the Personnel Service

Department, City of Fresno, dated June 13, 2006. The letter states, inter alia, that “an

Case 1:06-cv-01264-OWW -GSA Document 44 Filed 02/13/08 Page 1 of 4
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

 Plaintiff’s original complaint listed the Fresno City Police Department as the defendant. (Doc. 1). 2

Plaintiff was advised that his complaint alleged no claims against that defendant and that he would need to allege a

policy or custom resulting in a constitutional violation to establish a claim against a municipality. (Doc. 4).

2

investigation concluded that the Fresno Police Department acted properly as directed by the

appropriate state and local authorities.” The letter further advised Plaintiff that the incident was

not caused by negligence on the part of the City of Fresno, and that the claim Plaintiff had

submitted was rejected.

1. Pleading Standard

The federal system is one of notice pleading. Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307

F.3d 1119, 1126 (2002). “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions,

with limited exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v.

Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a

complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant

fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz,

534 U.S. at 512. 

Plaintiff was previously advised that an amended complaint be complete in itself without

reference to any prior pleading. (Doc. 4). As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes

the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files

an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. 

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement

of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Plaintiff was also cautioned that it was his

responsibility to organize his complaint so that defendants and the court can readily ascertain

which claims plaintiff is pursuing against which defendants. 

2. Municipal Liability

 Plaintiff was advised in this Court’s previous order dismissing Plaintiff’s initial

complaint, that a local government unit may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees

under a respondeat superior theory of liability. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 2

Case 1:06-cv-01264-OWW -GSA Document 44 Filed 02/13/08 Page 2 of 4
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

 Plaintiff filed his complaint on September 14, 2006. (Doc. 1). The Court ordered that this complaint be 3

dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2006. (Doc. 5). The

Defendants’ filed a motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, or in the Alternative, a Motion for More

Definitive Statement on June 19, 2007. (Doc. 26). The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss in part with leave to

amend on August 15, 2007. (Doc. 31). On November 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed the most recent amended complaint. 

(Doc. 40).

3

U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2003); Gibson v. County

of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1185 (9th Cir. 2002). Rather, a local government unit may only be

held liable if it inflicts the injury complained of. Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1185. 

Generally, a claim against a local government unit for municipal or county liability

requires an allegation that “a deliberate policy, custom, or practice . . . was the ‘moving force’

behind the constitutional violation . . . suffered.” Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652,

667 (9th Cir. 2007); City of Canton, Ohio, v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). Alternatively,

and more difficult to prove, municipal liability may be imposed where the local government

unit’s omission led to the constitutional violation by its employee. Gibson at 1186. Under this

route to municipal liability, the “plaintiff must show that the municipality’s deliberate

indifference led to its omission and that the omission caused the employee to commit the

constitutional violation.” Id. Deliberate indifference requires a showing “that the municipality

was on actual or constructive notice that its omissions would likely result in a constitutional

violation.” Id. 

3. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed November 16, 2007

On November, 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint entitled, “3 Amended rd

Complaint and a More Definite Statement, Memorandum to the Court.” (Hereinafter, “Plaintiff’s

Most Recent Amended Complaint.”) (Doc. 40). However, it appears that this is actually

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Plaintiff does not allege in this document that the City 3

of Fresno had a deliberate policy, custom or practice that was the moving force behind his

alleged constitutional violation; or alternatively, that the City of Fresno’s deliberate indifference

let to its omission and that omission led to the constitutional violation by its employee.

A plaintiff may amend his complaint once “as a matter of course,” and without leave of

Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). 

Case 1:06-cv-01264-OWW -GSA Document 44 Filed 02/13/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9 Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is th

required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). On November 31, 2007, Defendants filed

an answer to Plaintiff’s most recent amended complaint. (Doc. 41). While the Court should

freely give leave to amend if justice requires, the Court may deny leave to amend if the

amendment would be futile or subject to dismissal. Bonn, 59 F.3d at 845; Saul v. United States,

928 F.2d 829, 843 (9 Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has already been given two opportunities to amend th

his complaint to include various Defendants and was previously advised of the law regarding

municipal liability. He has failed to sufficiently articulate allegations to properly name the City

of Fresno as a defendant in the most recent amended complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff ‘s current

motion has not provided sufficient information to indicate that an amended complaint is

warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to add the City of Fresno as a defendant is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 12, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01264-OWW -GSA Document 44 Filed 02/13/08 Page 4 of 4