Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00883/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00883-3/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

JOSE LUIS GODOY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00883-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. Nos. 21, 22

Plaintiffs Jose Luis Godoy and three minor children identified by their initials L.M., K.A. 

and J.C., have filed a civil rights suit against defendants County of Sonoma, City of Santa Rosa 

and Does 1 through 20.1 Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs allege causes of action for (i) unreasonable seizure 

against Does 1 through 20; (ii) municipal liability for unconstitutional practices against all 

defendants; (iii) battery against all defendants; and (iv) negligence against all defendants; and (v) 

interference with exercise of civil rights against Does 1 through 20. Defendants County of 

Sonoma and City of Santa Rosa have moved to dismiss. Dkt. Nos. 21, 22. Pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 7-1(b), I find this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and I VACATE the 

hearing set for May 27, 2015.

Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The complaint is a

jumbled recitation of elements, devoid of factual allegations in support of the claims. See Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice 

if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’”) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. 

 

1

The minor children are pursuing this action through their guardians ad litem.

Case 3:15-cv-00883-WHO Document 28 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 3
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

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, many of the allegations appear to be copied 

from an unrelated complaint. For example, there are references to “Defendants Oh and Shin” and 

“defendant City of Los Angeles”, none of which are named as defendants elsewhere in the 

complaint. Compl. ¶ 37. In addition, paragraph 26 states that defendants’ alleged misconduct is 

“summarized above in paragraph 37.” Id. ¶ 26 (emphasis added). But paragraph 37 does not 

contain any factual allegations. 

Only paragraph 21 of the complaint contains what appear to be factual allegations related 

to the claims. It states:

On January 9, 2014, at or near 253 Robin Way, Santa Rosa, 

California. Plaintiffs were all following the law, exercising their 

first amendment rights, and not a threat to anyone when agents or 

employees for the defendants County of Sonoma and City of Santa 

Rosa detained these Plaintiffs. Employees or agents for these 

Defendants, and each of them, then seized, searched and detained 

claimant through physical force and handcuffing. These Plaintiffs 

were also required to undergo questioning, photographing and 

documenting. Said agents’ or employees’ decision to seize, detain, 

and document was unlawful, constituted false imprisonment, assault, 

battery and negligent.

Compl. ¶ 21. The claims against Sonoma County and Santa Rosa, however, include allegations of 

“dangerous use of firearms” and a reference to a “decedent.” Compl. ¶¶ 26-27. The “factual” 

allegations in paragraph 21 say nothing about use of firearms or any decedent. It is clear that 

plaintiffs’ allegations, as currently drafted, have little if any bearing on the claims they are 

pursuing.2 

Apparently recognizing the deficiency of their complaint, plaintiffs include 

“statements of fact” in their oppositions to defendants’ motions to dismiss. See Dkt. Nos. 23 at 2-

4, 24 at 2-4. These “statements” include allegations nowhere to be seen in the complaint. I cannot 

consider them. See Schneider v. California Dep’t of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 

1998) (“In determining the propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court may not look beyond the 

complaint to a plaintiff’s moving papers, such as a memorandum in opposition to a defendant's 

motion to dismiss.”) (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs may include those allegations in an 

 

2

It also appears that plaintiffs’ counsel did not bother to review its own complaint before filing it 

with the Court, resulting in a waste of the Court’s and the parties’ resources. 

Case 3:15-cv-00883-WHO Document 28 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

amended complaint. 

It is the plaintiffs’ obligation to plausibly allege sufficient facts to support their causes of 

action. Conclusory allegations are insufficient. In this regard, plaintiffs appear to accuse both the 

Santa Rosa Police Department and the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department of misconduct 

arising from the same incidents. If this is not what plaintiffs intend, they should clarify this as 

well. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) (“[b]y presenting to the court a pleading . . . an attorney or 

unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, 

formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: . . . (3) the factual contentions have 

evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a 

reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery”). 

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED. Dkt. Nos. 21, 22. Plaintiffs’ complaint is 

DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended complaint must be filed within 20 days 

of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00883-WHO Document 28 Filed 05/13/15 Page 3 of 3