Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00490/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00490-4/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JESSE GREENBERG, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 19-cv-00490-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS 

MOOT; DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

TO REFILING 

Dkt. No. 30, 39 

 Pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 30). This Court 

previously ordered that plaintiff Jesse Greenberg file a response to defendants’ pending motion to 

dismiss postmarked no later than June 14, 2019. (Order Granting Extension, Dkt. No. 36.) 

Greenberg filed a response to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 37) and an additional opposition and 

response postmarked June 14, 2019 (Dkt. No. 40.) In that response, plaintiff requests that the 

Court deny defendants motion and order defendants to provide the information he has requested 

pursuant to California’s recently enacted Senate Bill 1421 (“SB 1421”), which amended the state’s 

Penal Code to increase access under the California Public Records Act to personnel and complaint 

records as against peace officers and custodial officers. (Id. at 1.) See Cal. Penal Code § 832.7; 

Cal. Gov’t Code § 6250 et seq. 

On June 7, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief to compel the defendants to 

issue a police report number and to enforce his rights to information under SB 1421. (Dkt. No. 

39.) 

Defendants argue in reply to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 42) that plaintiff’s response 

does not address their arguments that his complaint does not plead sufficiently any constitutional 

violations. Defendants further contend that plaintiff failed to meet his burden to entitlement to 

preliminary injunctive relief, i.e. that “[1.] he is likely to succeed on the merits [of the claims in his 

complaint], [2.] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3.] 

Case 4:19-cv-00490-YGR Document 45 Filed 07/11/19 Page 1 of 2
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 Californi

a

that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4.] that an injunction is in the public interest.” 

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (“Winter factors”). In addition, 

defendants oppose the request for injunctive relief on the grounds that the San Francisco Police 

Department has acknowledged plaintiff’s SB 1421 request, “intends to produce records as 

required,” and “disclosure of records pursuant to plaintiff’s request is underway.” (Id. at 5; Dkt. 

No. 42 at 2.) 

On July 3, 2019, the Court received and filed plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 

No. 44.) 

In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

(1) the Third Amended Complaint is deemed a request to file a Third Amended Complaint 

and is GRANTED. The Third Amended Complaint is deemed to have been filed properly as of July 

3, 2019. 

However, plaintiff Greenberg is cautioned that future filings of amended complaints 

without first requesting and obtaining from the Court an order granting permission to file an 

amended complaint will result in the amended complaint being stricken. 

(2) the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 30) is therefore 

DENIED AS MOOT. 

(3) plaintiff Greenberg’s request for injunctive relief is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 

failure to offer evidence to meet his burden on the four Winter factors set forth above, particularly 

in light of defendants’ representation that it is in the process of disclosing the records plaintiff 

seeks. 

(4) Within five (5) business days of this Order, defendants shall file a statement confirming 

the date upon which the records requested by Greenberg will be produced. 

This terminates Docket Nos. 30 and 39. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 11, 2019 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-00490-YGR Document 45 Filed 07/11/19 Page 2 of 2