Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04352/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04352-4/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD NORTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA ROSA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04352-JST 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 43

On September 3, 2015, Defendant City of Santa Rosa (“City”) filed a motion for summary 

judgment, or in the alternative, to dismiss for lack of prosecution. ECF No. 43. The City argues, 

in part, that the Court should dismiss this case as it relates to Defendants Officer Does 1-50 under 

Fed. R. Civ. Pro 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Id. at 18–19. The City notes that Plaintiff Bernard 

Norton has failed to name as a defendant the Santa Rosa Police Department officer whom Norton 

alleges violated his Fourth Amendment rights during a traffic stop on January 18, 2014, despite 

having knowledge of that officer’s identity since at least January 19, 2014. Id. at 14 (citing ECF 

No. 1 at 10). 

Norton does not dispute the fact that he had knowledge of the officer’s identity by January 

19, 2014. ECF No. 48 at 5. Instead, he asserts that “Plaintiff’s counsel mistakenly failed to 

amend the complaint to substitute Officer Diaz’s name for the DOE defendants.” Id. Plaintiff 

argues that “permitting a substitution [of Officer Diaz’s name for the DOE defendants] at this late 

hour in the litigation would not raise the risk of prejudice to Officer Diaz.” Id. at 6. 

The Court construes Plaintiff’s Response brief, ECF No. 48, as a motion to amend the 

complaint solely for the purpose of substituting Officer Diaz for Defendants Officer Does 1-50. 

The Court notes that “[a] complaint may be amended to substitute the name of the real defendant 

when discovered, so long as there is no unreasonable delay.” Borelli v. Black Diamond 

Case 3:14-cv-04352-JST Document 51 Filed 10/05/15 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

Aggregates, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-02093-KJM, 2015 WL 5178429, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2015). 

Defendant City is ordered to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint within 

fourteen days of the filing of this Order. Plaintiff shall file a reply brief within 7 days of 

Defendant’s response. At that time, the Court will take the question of amendment under 

submission without a hearing.

The Court vacates the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 

43. The Court will hold that motion in abeyance pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to 

amend the complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04352-JST Document 51 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 2