Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01626/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01626-8/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

ALI SALEEM BEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01626-JSC 

ORDER RE: THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND REQUEST TO 

MODIFY MEDIATION DEADLINE

Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s request to modify the parties’ deadline to 

participate in mediation in the Court-sponsored ADR Program due to the filing of Plaintiffs’ Third 

Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (Dkt. No. 62.) By Order of December 15, 2015, the Court granted 

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings but granted Plaintiffs leave “to amend the 

complaint to remedy the defects discussed” in the Order. (Dkt. No. 54 at 26.) Plaintiff has since 

filed the TAC, which alleges nine causes of action, including a newly-alleged claim under 42 

U.S.C. § 1986 and ten newly-added defendants, all individual officers with the Oakland Police 

Department. (Dkt. No. 60.) The Court did not authorize Plaintiffs to add a new claim or new 

parties. (Dkt. No. 54 at 26.) Plaintiffs did not seek leave to do so. 

While the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) named a number of Doe Defendants, and 

the TAC appears to allege that the newly named defendants are substitutions for the Does (see 

Dkt. No. 60 at 2), the general rule that “a plaintiff who names a Doe defendant in his complaint 

and alleges that the defendant’s true name is unknown has three years from the commencement of 

the action in which to discover the identity of the Doe defendant, to amend the complaint 

accordingly” Lindley v. Gen. Elec. Co., 780 F.2d 797, 800-01 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Cal. Civ. 

Proc. Code §§ 474, 581a, the predecessor statute to the current § 583.210, which is virtually 

Case 3:14-cv-01626-JSC Document 63 Filed 02/02/16 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

identical), does not apply. First, six of the ten newly-added defendants were already identified by 

name in earlier iterations of the complaint. Second, Plaintiffs did not allege in the SAC that the 

Doe Defendants’ identities were unknown. Moreover, the SAC, while it named Doe Defendants, 

brought the causes of action solely against the City of Oakland. The Court’s Order granting leave 

to amend therefore permitted Plaintiff to amend the claims only against the City. 

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the new Section 1986 claim and all of the new individual 

defendants without leave to amend. Defendant need only respond to the Third Amended 

Complaint as if it did not include such allegations. Defendant’s answer or other response shall be 

filed on or before February 25, 2016. In light of the parties’ representations at the hearing on the 

motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the futility of mediation until the pleadings are 

set, the Court finds good cause to vacate the mediation deadline and therefore GRANTS 

Defendant’s request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01626-JSC Document 63 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 2