Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02090/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02090-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

- 1 - 05cv2090

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEREK FRANK LATIMER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05cv2090 JM(JMA)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE;

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

EFFECTUATE SERVICE ON

INDIVIDUALLY NAMED

DEFENDANTS 

vs.

WILLIAM B. KOLENDER; COUNTY OF

SAN DIEGO, et al.

Defendants.

Motion to Dismiss

Defendants William B. Kolender (“Kolender”) and the County of San Diego (“County”) move

to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). Plaintiff opposes the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this matter is appropriate

for decision without oral argument. On June 3, 2008 the court granted Kolender’s motion to dismiss

on the ground that there is no supervisory liability under §1983 and County’s motion to dismiss on

the ground that Plaintiff failed to identify any policy, custom or practice to delay medical care. The

court granted Plaintiff once last opportunity to amend the complaint. As in the Second Amended

Complaint, Plaintiff makes generalized allegations that the 12 hour delay in seeing a physician, after

first seeing a nurse practitioner upon his booking into the County jail, was due to budget cuts and

under funding of medical facilities. As in the previous order, these generalized allegations fail to

Case 3:05-cv-02090-JM-JMA Document 79 Filed 10/30/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 05cv2090

establish either a Monell claim against County or supervisory liability against Kolender.

Consequently, the court grants the motion to dismiss. As there is no showing that Plaintiff’s claim

arises above a speculative level, Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, __550 U.S. __, 127 S.Ct. 1955

(2007) (the complaint’s allegations must “plausibly suggest[]” that the pleader is entitled to relief);

Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008) (Twombly standard applies in cases

brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983), the court grants the motion to dismiss without leave to amend. As

Plaintiff has had four opportunities to state a claim against these defendants, the motion is grant

without leave to amend.

Order To Show Cause

Although not named as defendants, Plaintiff apparently seeks to join additional parties to this

action: Dennis Runyen, Earl Goldstein, Beverly Orr, Kama Gulluma, Arun Swaminath, G. Garcia,

Neath Sneathins, Balcita Abalcish, Joshua Lee, and James Adams (collectively “Defendants”).

However, it does not appear that Plaintiff has yet to serve these Defendants or to name them as parties

as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 10. Consequently, Plaintiff is ordered to file a Fourth Amended

Complaint naming these individuals as Defendants and to effectuate service within 45 days of entry

of this order. In the event that Plaintiff fails to effectuate service within this time frame, Plaintiff must

file a response with this court and show cause why the action should not be dismissed for the failure

to effectuate timely service on these Defendants. 

In sum, the motion to dismiss Kolender and County is granted with prejudice and without leave

to amend. Plaintiff is also ordered to file a Fourth Amended Complaint and to effectuate service on

additionally named Defendants within 45 days of entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 30, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:05-cv-02090-JM-JMA Document 79 Filed 10/30/08 Page 2 of 2