Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01495/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01495-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK A. GRANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL CORRAL et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-01495-MCE-CKD PS

ORDER

(ECF No. 9)

Presently before the court is defendants Jose Mendez and City of Sacramento’s motion to 

dismiss.1(ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff has filed an opposition, and defendants filed a reply. The court 

held a hearing on defendants’ motion on January 15, 2020, and has considered the briefing and 

the arguments at the hearing. For the following reasons, defendants’ motion is denied. 

Defendants’ motion argued for dismissal because plaintiff’s complaint “merely alleges 

that []he was sent a Notice and Order packet from the City and he disagreed with the content of 

it.” (ECF No. 9-1 at 4.) According to defendants, “these allegations are insufficient to support a 

due process . . . cause of action.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s complaint, although not clear in places, does 

include allegations that a fine was imposed against him and alleges that his property was declared 

a nuisance. (ECF No. 4 Exs. A, B.) Plaintiff opposed defendants’ motion alleging he attempted 

 

1 Defendant Michael Corral has not been served and has not entered.

Case 2:19-cv-01495-MCE-CKD Document 19 Filed 01/21/20 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

to appeal the City’s ruling, but the charges were “dropped.” (ECF No. 11 at 3.) Defendants, in 

their reply, for the first time, argued that the entire case should be dismissed as moot because 

plaintiff admitted that the charges were “dropped” in his opposition. (See ECF No. 15 at 2.) 

However, defendants do not mention the fine or the declaration of nuisance, and no documents or 

declarations have been provided to the court to prove the status of the underlying action. At this 

juncture there is no evidence properly before the court to allow it to conclude that the charges

underlying the present action have been dropped, and, if so, how that status affects plaintiff’s due 

process and equal protection claims. 

Accordingly, the court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

Additionally, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint without leave of court (ECF 

No. 17), which the court interprets as a request for leave to file an amended complaint. In the 

interest of justice and to allow plaintiff to have his claims fully heard, the court grants plaintiff 

leave to file his Second Amended Complaint. See Fed R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Second Amended 

Complaint currently filed (ECF No. 17) shall be the operative complaint in this action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is DENIED; 

2. Plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint is GRANTED, the Second Amended 

Complaint (ECF No. 17) shall be the operative complaint in this action; and

3. Pursuant to Rule 12(a)(4) defendants shall file a responsive pleading to the Second 

Amended Complaint within 14 days of this Order.

Dated: January 21, 2020

16.grant.1495

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01495-MCE-CKD Document 19 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 2