Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04116/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04116-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DABNEY, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CITY OF HAYWARD, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-4116 BZ

ORDER GRANTING SECOND MOTION 

TO DISMISS

Before the Court is the defendant’s second motion to

dismiss this civil rights complaint on two grounds. When

counsel for plaintiffs failed to appear at oral argument, I

continued the hearing for two weeks. Upon reflection, I have

concluded that there is no need for argument at this time and

VACATE the hearing presently scheduled for 

May 19, 2010.

Defendant is correct that the amended complaint still

fails to adequately plead a Monell claim. Under Monell v.

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 692-95 (1978), “A

local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury

inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is

Case 3:09-cv-04116-BZ Document 37 Filed 05/05/10 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

2

when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether

made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may

fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the

injury that the government as an entity is responsible under §

1983.” Id. at 694. Plaintiffs were cautioned about this

failing when I granted the earlier motion to dismiss. Yet

plaintiffs failed to meaningfully amend their complaint. The

amended complaint is simply devoid of any allegations

regarding a policy, custom, or action of a policymaker. Nor

did plaintiffs explain in their opposition why they did not

need to meet the Monell standard.

In as much as the City of Hayward is the only defendant,

I see no reason to consider its other argument - that the

complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a

plausible claim against the Doe defendants. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to

dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend. Plaintiffs are given

one final opportunity to plead an adequate civil rights claim

against defendant. Their amended complaint shall be filed by

May 19, 2010.

Dated: May 5, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\DABNEY V. CITY OF HAYWARD\SEC ORDER GRANTING DEF'S MOT TO

DISMISS.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-04116-BZ Document 37 Filed 05/05/10 Page 2 of 2