Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04678/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04678-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 The Court grants Defendants’ unopposed request that the Court take judicial notice of

Plaintiff’s Verified Claim Against the City of Napa based on this incident and the City’s Notice of

Rejected Claim for Damages. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AGUEDA ESPINOZA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OFFICER SEAN ULITIN, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-07-04678 EDL

ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

On September 11, 2007, Plaintiff Agueda Espinoza, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit

against two officers of the Napa Police Department and the City of Napa alleging violations of 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and various state laws. On February 15, 2008, Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff, now represented by counsel, opposed the

motion to dismiss the federal claims, but conceded that the state law claims are time-barred.1

Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without leave to amend. Plaintiff also

acknowledged at the March 25, 2008 hearing that she could not plead any facts to support municipal

liability against the City of Napa pursuant to Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436

U.S. 658 (1978). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against the City are dismissed without leave to

amend. 

Facts

According to the complaint, on or about September 30, 2005, Officer Ulitin of the Napa

Police Department “battered Plaintiff and used unreasonable forces as to Plaintiff” in violation of the

Fourth Amendment. Compl. ¶ 4. Officer Davis failed to intervene in the misconduct of Officer

Case 3:07-cv-04678-EDL Document 24 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 3
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

Ulitin. See id. The officers were on duty at the time of the incident. See Compl. ¶ 9. As a result of

the officers’ actions, Plaintiff suffered injury. See Compl. ¶ 8. 

Legal Standard

 A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) may only be granted

if “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Dismissal may be based

on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable

legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In analyzing a

motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, and

construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. NL Industries, Inc. v. Kaplan,

792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Discussion

With respect to Plaintiff’s remaining federal claims, Defendants argue that the claims

should be dismissed because they are entirely lacking in facts and are conclusory. See Ove v.

Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2001) (“While all allegations of material fact are taken as true

and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, [citation omitted], conclusory

allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.”); see

also Davis v. Sacramento County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13819 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25,

2008) (holding that pro se complaints are entitled to a liberal reading, but not to the extent that the

liberal interpretation supplies essential elements of a claim that are not pled). Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a)(2), however, requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only “ ‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” Erickson v.

Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955,

1959 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957))).

Here, it is a close question as to whether Plaintiff’s complaint satisfies Rule 8(a)(2). 

Plaintiff was proceeding pro se when the complaint was filed and pro se complaints are entitled to a

liberal reading. Using a liberal interpretation, the complaint is likely sufficient. However, Plaintiff

Case 3:07-cv-04678-EDL Document 24 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 3
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

now has counsel and her state law claims against all Defendants and her federal claims against the

City of Napa are being dismissed. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted with

leave to amend. Plaintiff shall amend to delete the state law claims and claims against the City. 

Further, Plaintiff shall amend to add factual allegations in support of her § 1983 claims. The

amended complaint shall be filed no later than April 4, 2008.

This matter is set for a case management conference on May 6, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. The

parties shall file a joint case management conference statement no later than April 29, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04678-EDL Document 24 Filed 03/26/08 Page 3 of 3