Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01882/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01882-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Highway Patrol
Defendant
Lupe Herrera
Plaintiff
Pete Herrera
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETE HERRERA and LUPE HERRERA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL,

Defendant.

No. 1:15-cv-01882-TLN-SAB

ORDER

This is a lawsuit seeking the return of $90,000 in cash that was seized during a traffic stop. 

The matter is before the Court on Defendant California Highway Patrol’s (“CHP” or 

“Defendant”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiffs Pete Herrera (“Pete”) and Lupe 

Herrera (collectively “Plaintiffs”) concede that Defendant’s motion should be granted, but seek 

leave to amend their complaint to add a new defendant. (Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Dismiss, 

ECF No. 19 at 3:2–19.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is 

GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ informal request for leave to amend is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs allege that an unnamed CHP Officer, who turned out to be Officer Joel Platt 

(“Platt”), stopped Pete’s car while Pete was driving on Highway 99. (Compl., ECF No. 2 Ex. A, 

at ¶¶ 6–7.) Platt asked Pete for consent to search the car, and Pete agreed. (ECF No. 2 Ex. A, at 

¶ 7.) Platt discovered $90,000 in cash in the car, which he seized. (ECF No. 2 Ex. A, at ¶¶ 7–8.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01882-TLN-SAB Document 25 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiffs initially filed this lawsuit in state court against CHP and Does 1 to 100 seeking a 

declaratory judgment that they are the rightful owners of the seized money. (ECF No. 2 Ex. A, at 

¶¶ 12–15.) Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to add a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for 

“Deprivation of Property Without Due Process of Law.” (ECF No. 2 Ex. A, at ¶¶ 16–21.) 

Defendant removed the case to federal court. (ECF No. 2.) The parties stipulated to an amended 

complaint that contained only Plaintiffs’ claim under § 1983. (ECF No. 12.) Defendant now 

moves to dismiss. (ECF No. 13.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is straightforward and essentially unopposed. Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits dismissal when the plaintiff fails “to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” That is the case here. Section 1983 provides in 

relevant part that “[e]very person who, under color of [state law] . . .subjects [any citizen or

resident] to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution 

and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But CHP is 

not a “person”—it is an arm of the state that may not be sued under § 1983. See Pittman v. Or., 

Emp’t Dep't, 509 F.3d 1065, 1072–73 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police,

491 U.S. 58 (1989)). Plaintiffs concede the point. (ECF No. 19 at 3:3–5.) Accordingly, 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

B. Informal Request to Amend

To salvage their case, Plaintiffs seek to replace Defendant with Platt. (ECF No. 19 at 

3:13–19.) According to Plaintiffs, their misstep “can be corrected by allowing . . . Plaintiffs to 

substitute into the litigation [Platt] as Doe 1.” (ECF No. 19 at 3:14–16.) Alternatively, Plaintiffs 

seek leave to amend their complaint. (ECF No. 19 at 3:16–18.)

There is no practical difference between Plaintiffs’ alternative requests. Rule 15 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs requests to substitute a Doe defendant just as it governs 

all other requests to amend a complaint. Butler v. Robar Enters., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 621, 622 n.1 

(C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Merritt v. Cty. of L.A., 875 F.2d 765, 768 (9th Cir. 1989)). See also 

Case 1:15-cv-01882-TLN-SAB Document 25 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 4
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

Raynor Bros. v. Am. Cyanimid Co., 695 F.2d 382, 384 (9th Cir. 1982) (applying Rule 15 when 

evaluating the substitution of a Doe defendant).

Under Rule 15, leave to amend is given freely. The Ninth Circuit has instructed that “a 

district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, 

unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, Plaintiffs cannot allege any facts that 

will bring CHP within the ambit of § 1983. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim because they have sued 

an entity to whom § 1983 does not apply. See Pittman, 509 F.3d at 1072–73.

By requesting leave to amend, Plaintiffs effectively seek to swap one civil action for 

another, turning Herrera v. CHP into Herrera v. Platt. (ECF No. 19 at 3:13–19.) But Plaintiffs’

request is not properly made. Rule 7(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] 

request for a court order must be made by motion.” Plaintiffs have not made a motion for leave 

to amend. They have simply requested leave in an opposition brief. (ECF No. 19 at 3:3–19.) 

Plaintiffs have also overlooked Local Rule 137(c), which provides: “If filing a document requires 

leave of court, such as an amended complaint after the time to amend as a matter of course has 

expired, counsel shall attach the document proposed to be filed as an exhibit to [the] moving 

papers seeking such leave[.]” When a party fails to comply with Local Rule 137(c), the party’s 

request should be denied. See B.O.L.T. v. City of Rancho Cordova, No. 2:14-CV-01588-GEBDAD, 2014 WL 6895944, at *5–6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014). Here, Plaintiffs did not file a 

proposed amended complaint naming Platt as a defendant. (See ECF No. 19.) Plaintiffs cannot 

transubstantiate this lawsuit from one against CHP to one against Platt in such a haphazard 

fashion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ informal request for leave to amend is DENIED.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the following is hereby ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiffs’ informal request for leave to amend is DENIED.

3. Plaintiffs may file a formal motion for leave to amend within fourteen (14) days of the 

date this Order is filed. If Plaintiffs do not timely file their motion, the case will be 

Case 1:15-cv-01882-TLN-SAB Document 25 Filed 02/14/17 Page 3 of 4
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

4

dismissed with prejudice without further action by the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 13, 2017

Case 1:15-cv-01882-TLN-SAB Document 25 Filed 02/14/17 Page 4 of 4