Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01626/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01626-5/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALI SALEEM BEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01626-JSC 

ORDER ALLOWING SUPPLEMENTAL 

OPPOSITION

Re: Dkt. No. 33

Plaintiffs Ali Saleem Bey and John Muhammed Bey, proceeding pro se, bring this action 

against the City of Oakland (“Defendant”). In the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), 

Plaintiffs allege numerous civil rights violations by the Oakland Police Department (“OPD”) and 

its officers, generally contending that the OPD failed to adequately investigate Plaintiffs’ internal 

affairs division complaints due to racial and religious discrimination against Plaintiffs as members 

of the Black Muslim community. (Dkt. No. 15.) The Court previously reviewed Plaintiffs’ SAC 

pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2) and concluded that Plaintiffs’ claims were sufficiently pleaded to 

proceed to service. (Dkt. No. 16 (“Section 1915 Order”).) The Court clarified that its 

determination that the SAC stated a claim for the purposes of Section 1915 was without prejudice 

to Defendant moving to dismiss the claims on any grounds. (Id. at 8.) 

Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Dkt. No. 33.) In their opposition to 

Defendant’s arguments, Plaintiffs repeatedly cite the Court’s Section 1915 Order as authority that 

demonstrates that the SAC is sufficiently pleaded. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 43 at 8 (“The Court has 

reviewed the SAC and ruled . . . that Plaintiffs’ complaint . . . does in fact state claims that relief 

can be granted on.”); id. at 12, 13, 14 (quoting the Section 1915 Order’s language that Plaintiffs 

Case 3:14-cv-01626-JSC Document 46 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

had pleaded equitable tolling for the purposes of Section 1915 review); id. at 15, 16, 18 (quoting 

the Section 1915 Order’s language that the SAC states a claim upon which relief can be granted); 

id. at 18 (quoting the Section 1915 Order’s language declining “to find that the intracorporate 

conspiracy doctrine prevents Plaintiff’s claims from surviving Section 1915 review.”).) 

Plaintiffs misunderstand the purpose and effect of the Court’s Section 1915 Order. While 

review under Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) and therefore involves the same inquiry of whether the allegations state a plausible claim 

for relief, allowing a complaint to proceed to service under Section 1915 does not mean that the 

complaint states a claim for the purposes of withstanding a defendant’s motion to dismiss. This is 

especially true where, as here, the Section 1915 Order expressly stated that its determination was 

without prejudice to Defendant moving for dismissal on any grounds. (See Dkt. No. 16 at 8.) 

Given their misunderstanding, the Court will permit Plaintiffs to file a supplemental opposition 

addressing the merits of Defendant’s arguments without reliance on the Court’s Section 1915 

Order as authority. Plaintiffs’ supplemental opposition, if any, shall be filed by November 19, 

2015. Defendant may file a supplemental reply by November 25, 2016. In light of this additional 

briefing, the motion hearing previously set for November 19, 2015 is CONTINUED to December 

3, 2015 at 9:00 am.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01626-JSC Document 46 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 2