Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01681/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01681-2/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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 1

 Docket No. 16.

2

 Though Plaintiff lists the separate claims for relief in his complaint as “Counts,” the Court will refer to them as

causes of action for the purposes of this motion. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMETRIUS L. HARVEY,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND,

Defendant. /

No. C07-01681 MJJ

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR MORE

DEFINITE STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant City of Oakland’s (“Defendant’s” or “City’s”) Motion to

Dismiss and Motion for More Definite Statement.1

 Pro se Plaintiff Demetrius Harvey (“Plaintiff”)

failed to file a timely opposition. For the following reasons, the Court STRIKES Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss and STRIKES Defendant’s Motion For More Definite Statement as moot. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant City and several individual

officers arising from a traffic stop and Plaintiff’s subsequent arrest and detention. In his first cause

of action2

, Plaintiff sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendment Rights. In his second, third, and fourth causes of action, Plaintiff made tort claims for

Case 4:07-cv-01681-SBA Document 25 Filed 08/06/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

3

 Docket No. 17.

4

 Docket No. 18.

5

 Docket No. 19.

2

false arrest, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Finally, in his fifth and sixth

causes of action, Plaintiff asserted claims under Article 1 §§ 7(A) and 13 of the California

Constitution. 

On June 6, 2007, Defendant moved to dismiss, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6), each of Plaintiff’s claims on separate grounds and, in the alternative, moved for a more

definite statement under Rule 12(e). On June 22, 2007, after Plaintiff failed to timely respond to

Defendant’s motion, this Court issued an order to show cause3

 requiring Plaintiff: 1) to show good

cause in writing why he failed to respond; and 2) to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition

to Defendant’s motion. On June 29, 2007, the Court received a letter4

 from Plaintiff stating that he

was currently incarcerated and requesting forty five days to amend his complaint. That same day,

this Court issued another order5

 finding the extension period requested unwarranted, yet allowed

Plaintiff to file an opposition, statement of non-opposition, or amended complaint by July 13, 2007. 

On July 12, 2007, Plaintiff served Defendant with an Amended Complaint. 

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion addresses the allegations in the original Complaint. Defendants have not

had an opportunity to address the allegations in the Amended Complaint, which is currently the

operative complaint before the Court. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss and STRIKES Defendant’s Motion For More Definite Statement as moot. The Court

GRANTS Defendant leave to file renewed a motion. Any renewed motions shall be filed within 20

days of the filing of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August___, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:07-cv-01681-SBA Document 25 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 2