Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02792/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02792-2/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF CHERI LYN HOLT-MOORE 

and DAVID MOORE,

Plaintiffs, No. C 07-2792 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

CHIEF DAVID DOUGLAS, OFFICER

ROCKY HARPHAM, SGT. MICHAEL

JOHNSON, OFFICER TIME JONES, 

LT. TONY ZANOTTI, LT. TODD

WILCOX, SGT. LYNNE SODERBERG,

OFFICER MENGAL, DT. RON 

HARPHAM, OFFICER TERENCE LILIES,

OFFICER RODRIGO SANCHEZ, THE

EUREKA POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE

CITY OF EUREKA, AND VARIOUS 

DOE DEFENDANTS, 1 - x, inclusive,

Defendants.

____________________________/

Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint came on for hearing before this

court on October 17, 2007. Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel, W. Gordon Kaupp,

and defendants appeared through their counsel, Nancy K. Delaney. Having carefully

reviewed the parties’ papers and considered their arguments and relevant legal authority,

and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the motion as follows, for the

reasons stated at the hearing and summarized as follows.

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss all causes of action against defendants Zanotti,

Wilcox, Soderberg, Mengal, Harpham, Lilies and Sanchez is GRANTED, due to plaintiffs’

failure to allege with specificity any grounds for relief against these defendants. The court

finds that plaintiffs’ have failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 8. The dismissal is

with leave to amend. 

Case 4:07-cv-02792-PJH Document 15 Filed 10/19/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action for violation of the

Fourth Amendment brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all defendants is also

GRANTED, as plaintiffs fail to clarify that this claim is only asserted by the estate of Ms.

Moore, and not by plaintiff David Moore, who has no standing to assert this claim on his

own behalf. Leave to amend is granted, so that plaintiffs can cure this deficiency. 

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s request for pain and suffering

damages is construed by the court as a motion to strike. Plaintiffs concede that pain and

suffering damages are not available as a matter of law and contend that they have made

no such claim for relief. The motion is GRANTED, however, as the damages sought are

not clear from the complaint. Leave to amend is granted so that plaintiffs can clarify these

allegations.

4. Finally, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ cause of action for violation of

the Bane Act is GRANTED in part and DENIED IN PART. To the extent that a Bane Act

claim is stated by plaintiff Moore on his own behalf, it is GRANTED. However, with regard

to a claim asserted by the estate, the court DENIES the motion and expressly rejects

defendants’ argument that the estate of Ms. Moore is legally incapable of asserting a Bane

Act claim, as there is an absence of legal authority supporting this argument. However, as

the claim even as to the estate is not stated with sufficient detail to enable the court to

determine whether a claim is actually stated, the motion is GRANTED with leave to amend. 

 Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint no later than November 19, 2007. And the

must attach to the complaint the order of the Probate Court establishing an estate for the

decedent. Defendants shall have 20 days thereafter in order to respond to the amended

complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02792-PJH Document 15 Filed 10/19/07 Page 2 of 2