Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00303/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00303-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREG WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al,

Defendants. /

No. C-06-00303 EDL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND AND CONTINUING

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE 

Plaintiff Greg Williams alleges that Defendants violated his civil rights while acting under

color of state law by demoting him as retaliation for engaging in protected activity. See 42 U.S.C. §

1983. The Complaint, however, only alleges that Plaintiff was demoted after failing to timely

submit a report to his supervisor, that Plaintiff received two evaluations whereas other employees

received only one, and that others with worse records were promoted or not disciplined. Plaintiff

alleges violations of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants moved to

dismiss the Complaint. Plaintiff conceded in his Opposition that he had no claim under the Fourth

Amendment and that the Oakland Fire Department should be dismissed if it was not a separate entity

capable of being sued, and argued generally that his Complaint could be amended to adequately

state violations of his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. After careful review of the

parties’ written arguments, the Court determines that this matter is appropriate for determination on

the papers and vacates the hearing scheduled for August 29, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The Court concludes

that the Complaint, as pleaded, fails to state any claim and accordingly GRANTS Defendants’

motion to dismiss. 

In his Opposition, Plaintiff set forth a number of additional allegations that may possibly

Case 3:06-cv-00303-EDL Document 19 Filed 08/23/06 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

2

allow him to pursue his claims, but he failed to include them in his Complaint. In general,

Defendants’ arguments in their motion to dismiss are well-taken. Further, Plaintiff does not identify

the alleged official policy of the City of Oakland on which he bases his Monnell claim. See Monnell

v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 694 (1978); Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d

911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff may be able to state a claim with these additional

allegations, however, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within twenty

days of this Order. Plaintiff agreed to dismiss any claim based on the Fourth Amendment, and has

not refuted Defendants’ statement that the Oakland Fire Department is not a separate entity capable

of being sued. See Defs.’ MPA at 1, n.1. Plaintiff shall amend his complaint accordingly. 

In light of this Order, the Court continues the initial Case Management Conference

scheduled in this case for August 29, 2006 until October 31, 2006 at 3 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00303-EDL Document 19 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 2