Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01716/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01716-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS JACOBSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, JANE T.

HIMMELOVO, JESSICA HAMILTON,

PAUL MANAUT, VUTHY SEAN JENKINS,

SAMIRA A. ADAAN, KIRBY BRACKEL,

ALLEN E. DE LA CRUZ, AND DOES 1-20,

Defendants. / 

No. C 19-01716 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE

AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND EXTEND TIME TO

SERVE NEW

DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Nicholas Jacobsen has filed a motion seeking leave to amend his complaint. 

The proposed complaint has substituted three new Doe defendants, but the remaining content is

essentially the same as the original complaint. Defendants do not oppose plaintiff’s request to

substitute the three new defendants nor to serve them. Defendants do, however, oppose the

proposed amended complaint on the ground that plaintiff has re-alleged three claims (ADA,

Rehabilitation Act, negligence) that had been dismissed in an August 2019 order. 

Plaintiff contends that he has only included these claims to preserve them for appeal. 

Our court of appeals has held that it will not require dismissed claims to be repled in a

subsequent amended complaint to be preserved for appeal. Lacey v. Marciopa Cty., 693 F.3d

896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012)(en banc). Though it is not improper under Lacey for plaintiff to

reallege the dismissed claims, there is no benefit in allowing plaintiff to do so here, and the

interests of judicial economy would not be preserved by granting plaintiff’s request.

Case 3:19-cv-01716-WHA Document 37 Filed 12/11/19 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

Accordingly, to the extent the proposed amended complaint substitutes the three new

Doe defendants, the motion is GRANTED. The motion to extend the time to serve these new

defendants is also GRANTED. To the extent the proposed amended complaint realleges the

claims dismissed in the August 2019 order, the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint in comport with this order by DECEMBER 18 AT NOON. Plaintiff has until

DECEMBER 30 to serve the new defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-01716-WHA Document 37 Filed 12/11/19 Page 2 of 2