Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02993/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02993-7/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SALISBURY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DETECTIVE MICHAEL WARD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-2993 MMC

ORDER GRANTING BERKELEY

OFFICERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS;

VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 26)

Before the Court is the motion filed September 1, 2006 by defendants Sgt. Michael

Dougherty and Officer Samantha Speelman (jointly, “Berkeley officers”) to dismiss the

claims asserted against them, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Plaintiff Michael Salisbury has filed an “opposition” to the motion, in which he

does not contest the merits of the Berkeley officers’ arguments for dismissal but, rather,

seeks leave to amend his complaint to drop the state law claims asserted against the

Berkeley officers and to clarify the basis of his federal claim. The Berkeley officers have

filed a reply. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in response to the

motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument, see

Civil L.R. 7-1(b), hereby VACATES the October 20, 2006 hearing, and rules as follows.

As plaintiff does not contest the merits of the Berkeley officers’ motion to dismiss the

existing claims, and good cause appearing, the motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED. 

Case 3:06-cv-02993-MMC Document 48 Filed 10/17/06 Page 1 of 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

1

 “A motion to dismiss is not a ‘responsive pleading’ within the meaning of Rule 15”

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Crum v. Circus Circus Enterprises, 231 F.3d

1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000).

2

In its September 5, 2006 order granting defendant Lance Sandri’s motion to dismiss

with leave to amend, the Court noted that plaintiff may amend his allegations against the

Berkeley officers as a matter of right, and afforded plaintiff leave to file, no later than

October 27, 2006, an amended complaint setting forth his amended claims against Sandri

and the Berkeley officers.1 Accordingly, no later than October 27, 2006, plaintiff may file an

amended complaint setting forth his amended claims against Sandri and the Berkeley

officers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02993-MMC Document 48 Filed 10/17/06 Page 2 of 2