Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05072/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05072-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON BROWNE et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

STEVEN GOSSETT et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-05072 CRB

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Now pending before the Court are defendants’ motions to dismiss. As explained in

open court on October 7, 2005, the Court rules as follows:

1. The motions to dismiss the Fifth Cause of Action (retaliatory discrimination) and the

Eleventh Cause of Action (ADA) are GRANTED with prejudice because plaintiffs

have withdrawn them.

2. The motions to dismiss the City of Arcata and Sonoma County from the federal claims

found in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Action are GRANTED

with prejudice because plaintiffs concede that there is no Monell claim.

3. The motions to dismiss the patient-only plaintiffs from the First Cause of Action is

GRANTED with prejudice because those plaintiffs -- Shepherd, William Browne,

Snow, Lerch, Rabey, Cecil, Neto, Burleigh, Stoops and Allen -- were not subject to

the search and seizure on July 18, 2002. 

Case 3:03-cv-05072-CRB Document 59 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2003\5072\order 2 mtd.wpd 2

4. The motion to dismiss the Thirteenth Cause of Action is GRANTED with prejudice as

to the federal due process claims under the 5th and 14th Amendments because

plaintiffs’ allegations are vague and conclusory and do not state a claim. 

5. The motions to dismiss the Twelfth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Twentieth Causes

of Action are GRANTED with prejudice because plaintiffs improperly added them in

contradiction to this Court’s order of July 14, 2004 granting plaintiffs leave to amend

the “remaining claims against the remaining defendants.”

6. The motions to dismiss the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Actions

against individual defendants Lucas, Gossett, and Salas are DENIED as to the federal

claims only.

7. The remaining state law claims are STAYED until further notice from the Court. 

Defendants Lucas, Gossett and Salas are to submit motions for summary judgment as

to the remaining federal claims on or before November 18, 2005. The motions will be heard

on January 27, 2006. Plaintiffs’ opposition shall be filed no later than January 6, 2006, and

defendants’ reply shall be filed no later than January 13, 2006. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered

to send a letter to defendants’ counsel requesting limited discovery by October 21, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2005

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-05072-CRB Document 59 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 2