Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05914/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05914-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City and County of San Francisco
Defendant
Scott Daniels
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-05914-MEJ 

ORDER SCREENING FOURTH 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 35

Defendant previously moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on the ground it 

was filed “more than two years after the incident giving rise to the suit, which is alleged to have 

occurred on October 15, 2015.” Mot. at 2, Dkt. No. 26; see also id. at 5 (“Here, in all three of his 

Complaints, Plaintiff alleged that the subject incident giving rise to this lawsuit occurred on 

October 15, 2015.”). In a supplemental brief, Plaintiff argued the incident had occurred on 

October 16, 2015, not on October 15, 2015 as he had previously alleged. See Suppl. Mot., Dkt. 

No. 33. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, but granted Plaintiff leave to amend 

the pleadings if he could allege the incident in fact had occurred within the two-year statute of 

limitations, or could allege facts showing equitable tolling should apply. MTD Order, Dkt. No. 

34.

Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, which is identical to his Third Amended 

Complaint except that it (1) alleges the date of the incident is October 16, 2015 (4AC, Dkt. No. 

35), and (2) attaches SFPD reports showing the date of the incident was recorded by SFPD as 

October 16, 2015 (id., Exs. 1-2).1 

 

1

The Court recognizes the Motion was based on Plaintiff’s allegations; however, official

documents stating the date of the incident was within the two-year statute of limitations were in 

Case 3:17-cv-05914-LB Document 36 Filed 06/04/18 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

The Court incorporates its Order Screening Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 25) as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant shall respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint no later 

than two weeks from the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2018

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

 

Defendant’s possession at the time it filed the Motion. Defendant accordingly knew or should 

have known the allegations were incorrect, and that their statute of limitations argument was 

premised on factually incorrect information. The Court is concerned that Defendant is not taking 

either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 or its duty of candor to the Court as seriously as it should. 

See also Civ. L.R. 11-4(a)(4) (requiring attorneys to “[p]ractice with the honesty, care, and 

decorum required for the fair and efficient administration of justice”). 

Case 3:17-cv-05914-LB Document 36 Filed 06/04/18 Page 2 of 2