Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01802/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01802-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

2

 The Court also heard argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss other claims asserted

by Plaintiffs. That motion will be addressed in a separate order.

Case No. C 03-1802 JF

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(JFLC1)

 

**E-Filed 7/18/06**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General of the

United States, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 03-01802 JF

ORDER1 GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

[re: docket no. 144]

Defendants Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States; Karen P. Tandy,

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”); John P. Walters, Director of

the Office of National Drug Control Policy; and 30 Unknown DEA Agents move to dismiss the

fifth claim for relief of Plaintiffs County and City of Santa Cruz, California, Valerie Corral,

Eladio V. Acosta, Jennifer Lee Hentz, Harold F. Margolin, Levi Castro, Dorothy Gibbs, James

Daniel Baehr, Michael Cheslosky, and Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (“WAMM”). 

Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The Court heard oral argument on June 23, 2006.2 For the reasons

Case 5:03-cv-01802-JF Document 153 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. C 03-1802 JF

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(JFLC1)

set forth below, the motion will granted in part and denied in part.

I. DISCUSSION

A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted for one of two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts under

a cognizable legal theory. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Robertson v. Dean

Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9th Cir. 1984). For purposes of a motion to

dismiss, all allegations of material fact in the complaint are taken as true and construed in the

light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752,

754 (9th Cir. 1994). A complaint should not be dismissed “unless it appears beyond doubt the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.” Id.

However, the Court “is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual

allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Id. at

754-55. Motions to dismiss generally are viewed with disfavor under this liberal standard and

are granted rarely. See Gilligan v. Jamco Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Plaintiffs’ fifth claim for relief alleges that the federal actions “that lead to the seizure of

the WAMM patient Plaintiffs’ medical marijuana violated their rights under the Fourth, Fifth,

Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.” See First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

¶ 115. Plaintiffs seek damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ fifth claim on

the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to serve the 30 Unknown DEA Agents within the time

required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Order of October 8, 2003, or

California law. Plaintiffs do not oppose the dismissal of the 30 Unknown DEA Agents or their

claim for monetary damages pursuant to Bivens. Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion to

dismiss with respect to the 30 Unknown DEA Agents and Plaintiffs’ claim for monetary damages

pursuant to Bivens.

However, Plaintiffs argue that, even though their fifth claim may be dismissed against the

30 Unknown DEA Agents, it should not be dismissed as to the official-capacity Defendants. 

Case 5:03-cv-01802-JF Document 153 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Case No. C 03-1802 JF

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(JFLC1)

Defendants argue that the entire claim should be dismissed because the only relief requested with

respect to this claim is damages. Thus, Defendants argue, because Plaintiffs may not seek

damages from official-capacity Defendants, the entire claim must be dismissed. See, e.g.,

Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 355 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[A] Bivens action can be

maintained against a defendant in his or her individual capacity only, and not in his or her official

capacity.”).

Although it is true that the only form of relief Plaintiffs request with respect to their fifth

claim is damages, this pleading defect is not a basis for dismissing the entire claim. See e.g.,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c) (“Except as to a party against whom a judgment is entered by default, every

final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled,

even if the party has not demanded such relief in the party’s pleadings.”); Pension Ben. Guar.

Corp. v. East Dayton Tool and Die Co., 14 F.3d 1122, 1127 (6th Cir. 1994) (“If a pleading

provides a defendant notice of the plaintiff’s claims and the grounds for the claims, omissions in

a prayer for relief do not bar redress of meritorious claims.”) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.

41, 47 (1957); Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 66 (1978)). Rather than dismiss the

fifth claim with respect to the official-capacity Defendants, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’

request for leave to amend the FAC in order to request appropriate relief against these

Defendants. The time within which Plaintiffs may amend will begin to run when this Court

issues its Order with respect to Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

II. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART with leave to amend, as set forth above.

DATED: July 18, 2006

_______________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-01802-JF Document 153 Filed 07/18/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. C 03-1802 JF

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(JFLC1)

Copies of this Order have been served upon the following persons:

John G. Barisone cferris@ abc-law.com

Frank Kennamer frank.kennamer@ bingham.com

Frank Kennamer frank.kennamer@bingham.com

Neha Shah Nissen neha.nissen@bingham.com, troy.sauro@bingham.com

Mark T. Quinlivan mark.quinlivan@usdoj.gov

Benjamin Terrence Rice benjamin.rice@doj.ca.gov, DocketingSACCLS@doj.ca.gov

Lauri A. Schumacher lauri.schumacher@ bingham.com,

Rachel Hannah Sommovilla rachel.sommovilla@bingham.com, shirlyn.kim@bingham.com

Daniel Abrahamson & Judith Appel

Drug Policy Alliance

Office of Legal Affairs

717 Washington Street

Oakland, CA 94607

Graham A. Boyd, Allen Hopper & Adam B. Wolf

Ameican Civil Liberties Union

Drug Law Reform Project

1101 Pacific Avenue, Suite 333

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Gerald Uelmen

Santa Clara University Law School

500 El Camino Real

Santa Clara, CA 95053

Case 5:03-cv-01802-JF Document 153 Filed 07/18/06 Page 4 of 4