Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03736/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03736-2/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

To date, neither individual officer has appeared.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY SCOTT MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-12-3736 MMC

ORDER GRANTING CALIFORNIA

HIGHWAY PATROL’S MOTION TO

DISMISS; GRANTING COUNTY OF

MARIN AND MARIN COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING 

Before the Court are two motions to dismiss plaintiff Gregory Scott Martinez’s

complaint: (1) defendant California Highway Patrol’s Motion to Dismiss, filed December 6,

2012; and (2) defendants County of Marin and Marin County Sheriff’s Department’s Motion

to Dismiss, filed November 19, 2012. Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, has not filed

opposition to either motion. Having read and considered the papers filed in support

thereof, the Court deems each such motion suitable for decision on the moving papers,

VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 11, 2013, and rules as follows:

1. In the First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief, plaintiff alleges that two law

enforcement officers, specifically, defendant California Highway Patrol Officer Perry and

defendant California Highway Patrol Officer Hohmeister, violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by

depriving plaintiff of his constitutional rights during the course of an arrest. In addition to

naming the two officers as defendants to said causes of action,1

 plaintiff also names the

Case 3:12-cv-03736-MMC Document 23 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 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

2

California Highway Patrol. As the California Highway Patrol points out, however, a state

agency, such as the California Highway Patrol, is not a proper defendant to any claim

under § 1983. See Will v. Michigan, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1988) (holding claim under § 1983

cannot be brought against state agency). Accordingly, to the extent the First, Second, and

Third Claims for Relief are alleged against the California Highway Patrol, the First, Second,

and Third Claims for Relief are subject to dismissal.

2. In the Fourth Claim for Relief, plaintiff alleges that employees of the Marin County

Jail, identified as “Does 1 through 10,” violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by not allowing plaintiff

“reasonable bail” (see Compl. ¶ 22); the only named defendants to said claim are the

County of Marin and Marin County Sheriff’s Department. As the County of Marin and Marin

County Sheriff’s Department correctly point out, however, plaintiff fails to allege any facts to

support a finding that any denial of bail occurred as a result of “an official municipal policy.” 

See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (holding municipality may

not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “unless action pursuant to an official municipal

policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort”). Accordingly, the Fourth Claim for

Relief is subject to dismissal.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above:

1. The California Highway Patrol’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the

First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief, to the extent alleged against the California

Highway Patrol, are hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend.

2. The County of Marin and Marin County Sheriff Department’s motion to dismiss is

hereby GRANTED, and the Fourth Claim for Relief is hereby DISMISSED with leave to

amend.

3. If plaintiff wishes to file a First Amended Complaint for the purposes of amending

the Fourth Claim for Relief to cure the deficiency identified above, plaintiff shall file and

//

//

Case 3:12-cv-03736-MMC Document 23 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 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

2

Plaintiff may not, however, add new claims or new defendants without obtaining

advance leave of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

3

serve such amended pleading it no later than January 22, 2013.2 If plaintiff does not file a

First Amended Complaint by January 22, 2013, the above-titled action will proceed against

Officer Perry and Officer Hohmeister only.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2013 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-03736-MMC Document 23 Filed 01/02/13 Page 3 of 3