Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06175/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06175-0/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SINDY PADILLA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06175-SI 

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND GRANTING 

PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT BY MARCH 

6, 2019

Re: Dkt. No. 18

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (“SAC”) is scheduled for a 

hearing on March 1, 2019. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter 

is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing. 

Defendants contend, inter alia, that the SAC’s allegations are conclusory, that there are no

factual allegations specific to any of the 22 individual defendants, and that plaintiffs have failed to 

state a claim. Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion asserts numerous new facts that are not 

alleged in the SAC. Plaintiffs’ opposition also fails to address certain of defendants’ arguments 

(such as whether plaintiffs wish to pursue a theory of direct liability against the City for the state 

tort claims and whether plaintiffs wish to pursue “official capacity” claims against certain 

defendants), and thus it is unclear whether plaintiffs are abandoning any claims and/or theories.

The Court finds that it is in the interest of judicial efficiency for plaintiffs to file a third 

amended complaint that contains the new facts asserted in the opposition and clarifies the nature of 

plaintiffs’ claims. In amending the complaint, plaintiffs shall include non-conclusory factual 

allegations, and plaintiffs must allege facts specific to each defendant; plaintiffs may not lump all 

defendants or groups of defendants together. The amended complaint shall also clarify whether 

Case 3:18-cv-06175-SI Document 26 Filed 02/22/19 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 California

plaintiffs seek to hold defendants liable in their official capacities and under direct or vicarious 

theories of liability.1

In addition, if plaintiffs pursue municipal liability under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of 

City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), plaintiffs are advised that local governments may be liable 

under § 1983 only when the actions of their employees in executing a government policy or custom 

deprive a plaintiff of his or her constitutional rights. Id. at 694; Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 833 

F.3d 1060, 1073 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. Los Angeles Cty., Cal. v. Castro, 137 S. Ct. 

831 (2017). In addition, local governments may be held liable for acts of omission, such as a failure 

to train, committed with deliberate indifference to a constitutional right. Clouthier v. Cty. of Contra 

Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1249 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389-90 

(1989)), overruled on other grounds by Castro, 833 F.3d at 1070. 

Finally, plaintiffs are advised that “[t]he Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and 

the equal protection component thereof apply only to actions of the federal government—not to 

those of state or local governments.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 687 (9th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiffs shall file the third amended complaint by March 6, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

1

 Plaintiffs are advised that with regard to state tort claims, “[a] public entity is not liable 

for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public 

employee or any other person” “except as otherwise provided by statute.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 815. 

“In other words, direct tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring 

them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care, and not on the general tort provisions 

of Civil Code section 1714. Otherwise, the general rule of immunity for public entities would be 

largely eroded by the routine application of general tort principles.” Eastburn v. Reg’l Fire Prot. 

Auth., 31 Cal. 4th 1175, 1183 (2003) (affirming dismissal of negligence claim against public entity 

where there was no independent statutory basis for imposing liability).

Case 3:18-cv-06175-SI Document 26 Filed 02/22/19 Page 2 of 2