Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00489/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00489-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joey Fitch
Plaintiff
Joseph Galland
Defendant
Christopher Knutson
Defendant
Jeffery Watts
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff asserts Bakersfield Police Officers Joseph Galland, Christopher Knutson and Jeffery 

Watts are liable for violations of his constitutional rights for actions taken related to the removal of his 

children from his home for eighteen months. (See generally Doc. 15) Defendants contend Plaintiff 

fails to state a claim for violations of the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments and seeks dismissal of 

the claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 27) In addition, 

Defendants seek to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages pursuant to Rule 12(f). (Id.) 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds factual allegations are insufficient to support the 

claims challenged, and there is no personal right to a cause of action under the Ninth Amendment,

Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED IN PART; and the motion to strike 

under Rule 12(f) is DENIED.

I. Background and Factual Allegations

Plaintiff asserts that early in the morning of November 12, 2013, he and his partner Bethany 

JOEY FITCH, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH GALLAND, CHRISTOPHER 

KNUTSON, and JEFFERY WATTS, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00489 - JLT

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING THE 

MOTION TO STRIKE

(Doc. 27)

Case 1:16-cv-00489-JLT Document 43 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 10
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

Fardig “awoke to find one of their 16 day old twin boys not breathing.” (Doc. 15 at 2, ¶ 6) Plaintiff 

reports that he and Ms. Fardig “also had a girl that was three (3) years of age at this time.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges “CPR was being conducted on baby J. Fitch as 911 was being called,” but his son did 

not survive. (Id.)

Plaintiff reports, “Forensic Pathologist, Dr. Robert Whitmore, performed the Autopsy of baby J.

Fitch on November 12, 2013.” (Doc. 15 at 3, ¶ 8) According to Plaintiff, the preliminary cause of 

death identified by Dr. Whitmore was “Sudden Unexplained Infant Death” with “[o]ther factors being 

co-sleeping, and methamphetamine was determined to be present.” (Id., emphasis omitted) Plaintiff 

alleges that a toxicology test of the baby’s blood “did not reveal any findings of Toxicological 

Significance.” (Id. at 4, ¶ 11, emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted) On March 28, 2014, 

Investigating Deputy Coroner, Rebecca Fisher, indicated: “After completing an investigation in 

conjunction with the Bakersfield Police Department, the death of Joey Lee Fitch was determined that 

the cause of death was sudden unexplained infant death and the manner was unable to be determined.” 

(Doc. 15 at 21; see also id. at 4, ¶ 13) 

Plaintiff alleges that on April 17, 2014, Galland and Watts came to his home, “after attempting 

phone contact a number of times within two weeks prior,” and wanted to speak about the autopsy with 

Ms. Fardig. (Doc. 15 at 4, ¶ 14) According to Plaintiff, the defendants inquired “how 

methamphetamine may have gotten into baby Fitch” and mentioned obtaining a urinary analysis from 

Ms. Fardig, after which she requested an attorney. (Id. at 4-5, ¶ 14) Plaintiff reports Galland and Watts 

left at that time and returned to their vehicle. (Id. at 5, ¶ 14) However, Plaintiff alleges they returned 

approximately thirty minutes later, after speaking with Sgt. Knutson, and called Ms. Fardig outside. 

(Id., ¶ 15) Plaintiff asserts Defendant Galland then arrested Ms. Fardig “for child endangerment 

leading to the death” and removed the two minor children from the home, “stating that he seized the 

children based upon the autopsy.” (Id., ¶ 15, emphasis omitted)

According to Plaintiff, “the facts demonstrate that [neither] ‘imminent danger’ nor exigent 

circumstances existed at the time defendant Galland seized plaintiff Fitch’s two (2) minor children 

without a protective warrant which ended with his two minor children away from him in foster care for 

18 months.” (Doc. 15 at 6) Plaintiff asserts that in February 2016, he “was awarded custody of the two 

Case 1:16-cv-00489-JLT Document 43 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 10
3

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

minor children in question; and the court dismissed jurisdiction.” (Id. at 6, ¶ 20)

Based upon the foregoing facts, Plaintiff filed contends Defendants “deprived Fitch and his two 

minor children of their right to be a family and live together, free from illegal search and seizure in 

violation of the First, Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.” 

(Doc. 15 at 7, ¶ 21) For these violations, the relief requested includes compensatory damages, punitive 

damages, costs of suit, and attorney fees. (Id. at 7)

II. Pleading Requirements

General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A 

complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of 

the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may 

include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The Federal Rules 

adopt a flexible pleading policy, and pro se pleadings are held to “less stringent standards” than those 

drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521-21 (1972).

A complaint must state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and succinct manner. 

Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The purpose of a complaint 

is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the grounds upon which the 

complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court noted,

Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an 

unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers 

labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will 

not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further 

factual enhancement.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

III. Motions to Dismiss

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 

729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate when “the complaint lacks a 

cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. 

Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, under Rule 12(b)(6), “review 

is limited to the complaint alone.” Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th Cir. 1993). 

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 

Case 1:16-cv-00489-JLT Document 43 Filed 01/06/17 Page 3 of 10
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

as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell 

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The Supreme Court explained, 

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks 

for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a 

complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops 

short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal citations, quotation marks omitted). 

A court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 

doubts in favor of the plaintiff. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). “The issue is not 

whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the claimant is entitled to officer evidence to 

support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and 

unlikely but that is not the test.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Therefore, the Court 

“will dismiss any claim that, even when construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, fails to plead 

sufficiently all required elements of a cause of action.” Student Loan Marketing Assoc. v. Hanes, 181 

F.R.D. 629, 634 (S.D. Cal. 1998). Here, Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the 

First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. (Doc. 27-1)

A. Representation of Others

As an initial matter, Defendants observe that the caption in the First Amended Complaint 

indicates “Plaintiffs” are “Joey Fitch, on behalf of himself and his Minor Children, E. Fitch and J. 

Fitch.” (Doc. 15 at 1, emphasis omitted) However, the section entitled “Parties” in the First Amended 

Complaint does not include the children. (Id. at 2) Thus, Defendants contend it is unclear whether 

Plaintiff intended to include his children as plaintiffs in this matter. (Doc. 27-1 at 4) To the extent 

Plaintiff does seek to state claims on behalf of his children, Defendants contend he is unable to do so. 

(Id. at 4)

Plaintiff does not clarify whether he seeks to state claims on behalf of his children in his 

opposition to the motion to dismiss. (See generally Doc. 38) Notably, the caption on the document 

omits any reference to the children and identifies only Joey Fitch as the named plaintiff. (Id. at 1)

Significantly, as Defendants observe, Plaintiff cannot bring claims on behalf of others while 

Case 1:16-cv-00489-JLT Document 43 Filed 01/06/17 Page 4 of 10
5

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

proceeding pro se in this action. The Ninth Circuit determined the right to represent oneself does not 

extend to representation of others. Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008); see 

also Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“A litigant appearing in propria persona 

has no authority to represent anyone other than himself”). Accordingly, the Court determined “a parent 

or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.” Johns v. 

County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). As a result, Plaintiff is unable to state claims 

on behalf of his children, and to the extent Plaintiff does so in the First Amended Complaint, the claims 

of the minor children are DISMISSED without prejudice.

B. Section 1983 Claims

Plaintiff seeks to proceed with claims in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), 

which “is a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 

266, 271 (1994). Thus, an individual may bring an action for the deprivation of civil rights pursuant to 

Section 1983, which states in relevant part: 

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, 

of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, 

any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof 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, suit in equity, or other 

proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. A plaintiff must allege facts from which it may be inferred (1) he was deprived of a 

federal right, and (2) a person or entity who committed the alleged violation acted under color of state 

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Williams v. Gorton, 529 F.2d 668, 670 (9th Cir. 1976). 

A plaintiff must allege a specific injury he suffered and show causal relationship between the 

defendant's conduct and the injury suffered. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976). Thus, 

Section 1983 “requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants 

and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff.” Chavira v. Ruth, 2012 WL 

1328636 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2012). An individual deprives another of a federal right “if he does 

an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is 

legally required to do so that it causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Case 1:16-cv-00489-JLT Document 43 Filed 01/06/17 Page 5 of 10
6

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. First Amendment Violation

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an 

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, 

or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a 

redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. amend. I. On the other hand, the Supreme Court of the United 

States determined also that “the First Amendment protects those relationships, including family 

relationships, that presuppose ‘deep attachments and commitments to the necessarily few other 

individuals with whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts, experiences, and beliefs 

but also distinctively personal aspects of one’s life.’”1Board of Dir. v. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537, 

545 (1987) (quoting Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619-20 (1984)). 

In Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit determined a 

plaintiffs “adequately alleged” an “unwarranted interference” with the “right to familial association 

under both the First and Fourteenth Amendments” where the plaintiffs alleged:

Mary Sanders Lee began searching for her son after his arrest. She contacted the Los 

Angeles Police Department, unknown employees of which told her that they had no 

record of, or information concerning, her son, when in fact, they knew or should have 

known that they had falsely arrested him and caused him to be extradited to New York. 

From 1993 to 1995, Mrs. Lee repeatedly contacted the Los Angeles Police Department 

regarding the whereabouts of Kerry Sanders. However, each time she was informed 

that his whereabouts were unknown .... The reckless, intentional and deliberate acts 

and omissions of defendants ... were a direct and legal cause of the deprivation of 

[Plaintiffs’] constitutionally protected right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments 

to the association, companionship and society of one and other as mother and son.

Id. at 685. The Court explained that the “constitutional interest in familial companionship logically 

extends to protect children from unwarranted state interference with their relationships with their

parents.” Id. Accordingly, the Court determined that both Ms. Lee and Mr. Sanders stated a claim for 

a violation of the First Amendment.

Similarly, here, Plaintiff alleges that Officer Galland interfered with his relationship with the 

children by removing them from Plaintiff’s home five months after the autopsy on his son was 

completed, and “without a protective warrant and no imminent danger.” (Doc. 15 at 5, ¶15; see also 

 

1The defendants’ motion does not consider that the First Amendment also protects associational rights between intimates.

Case 1:16-cv-00489-JLT Document 43 Filed 01/06/17 Page 6 of 10
7

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

id. at 6, ¶ 19) Thus, the facts alleged support a claim that Officer Galland deliberately interfered with 

Plaintiff’s “protected right... to the association, companionship, and society” of his children. See Lee, 

250 F.3d at 685. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim against Officer Galland is DENIED.

On the other hand, Plaintiff fails to allege facts that specifically link defendants Knutson and 

Watts to the removal of the children from his home. Rather, Plaintiff alleges it was Galland who was 

“the lead investigator,” was present during the autopsy, and who “seized plaintiff Fitch’s two (2) 

minor children without a protective warrant which ended with his two minor children away from him 

in foster care for 18 months.” (See Doc. 15 at 2, 6 ¶¶ 7, 18) Further, though Plaintiff alleges that 

Galland called Knutson prior to the removal, Plaintiff alleges only that “Knutson gave the okay... to 

arrest Fardig without a warrant.” (Id. at 5, ¶ 16) There is no indication that Knutson or Watts were 

involved with the decision to remove the children. Accordingly, the facts alleged are not sufficient to 

support a claim for a violation of the First Amendment by defendants Knutson and Watts, and the 

motion to dismiss is GRANTED. However, because the factual deficiencies may be cured, the claim 

is DISMISSED with leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000)

2. Fourth Amendment Violation

The Fourth Amendment protects children and families from warrantless removal of a child 

from their home. See Doe v. Lebbos, 348 F.3d 820, 827 n.9 (9th Cir. 2003). Absent exigent 

circumstances, a warrant must be obtained to remove a child from the home. Rogers v. Cnty. of San 

Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288, 1291 (9th Cir. 2007). Exigent circumstances are those showing a risk of 

imminent harm in the time it would take to get a warrant. See id. “Officials may remove a child from 

the custody of [the] parent without prior judicial authorization only if the information they possess at 

the time of the seizure is such as provides reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent 

danger of serious bodily injury and that the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that 

specific injury.” Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).

In Wallis v. Spencer, the Ninth Circuit addressed parents’ and children’s claims that the 

children in were unlawfully seized and removed from their parents’ custody. Id., 202 F.3d 1126. The 

Court determined that “because only the children were subjected to a seizure, their claims should 

properly be assessed under the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 1137, n.8. On the other hand, “claims of 

Case 1:16-cv-00489-JLT Document 43 Filed 01/06/17 Page 7 of 10
8

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

the parents in this regard should properly be assessed under the Fourteenth Amendment standard for 

interference with the right to family association.” Id.

Because Plaintiff is unable to state claims on behalf of his children for an unlawful seizure—

and his claim is properly analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment— Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

the Fourth Amendment claim is GRANTED.

2

3. Ninth Amendment Violation

The Ninth Amendment provides, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall 

not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” U.S. Constitution amend. IX. 

Other than a general reference to the Ninth Amendment, Plaintiff does not set suggest a legal theory or 

basis for his claim. Indeed, the Ninth Amendment does not independently secure any constitutional 

right for which Plaintiff may pursue a civil rights claim against the government. See Strandberg v. City 

of Helena, 791 F.2d 744, 748 (9th Cir. 1986). Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for a 

violation of the Ninth Amendment is GRANTED.

IV. Motion to Strike

Pursuant to Rule 12(f), a district court “may strike from a pleading . . . any redundant, 

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). A “redundant” matter is 

comprised “of allegations that constitute a needless repetition of other averments or which are foreign 

to the issue to be denied.” Wilkerson v. Butler, 229 F.R.D. 166, 170 (E.D. Cal. 2005). An immaterial 

matter “has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded,” 

 

2

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge a determination by the state court that the removal of the children from 

his home was improper through his claim for a civil rights violation, this Court is not empowered to review the decision of 

the state court. 

A federal plaintiff who asserts the state court made an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief 

from a state court judgment based on that decision, is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars the district court 

“from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.” Kougasian v. 

TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003). On the other 

hand, if a federal plaintiff asserts another party caused the legal harm, Rooker-Feldman does not bar jurisdiction. Noel, 341 

F.3d at 1164.

If Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he must address the fact that, apparently, the Kern County Juvenile 

Court determined that the children could not safely remain in his custody and determined they had to be placed in foster care

for 18 months (Doc. 15 at 6). To make this determination, the Juvenile Court must have determined that the children could 

not safely remain in Plaintiff’s care. Cal. Welf & Instit. Code § 361(a). Plaintiff may not challenge the correctness of this 

determination in this Court.

Case 1:16-cv-00489-JLT Document 43 Filed 01/06/17 Page 8 of 10
9

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

while an “[i]mpertinent matter consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the 

issues in question.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other 

grounds (quoting 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1382, at 

706-07, 711 (1990)).

Significantly, however, the Ninth Circuit has opined a Rule 12(f) motion is not the proper 

method by which to strike a claim for punitive damages. Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 

F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2010). In Whittlestone, the district court struck the plaintiff=s claims for lost 

profits and consequential damages, and the Ninth Circuit examined “whether Rule 12(f) authorizes the 

district court to strike such matter at all.” Id. at 973. Finding Rule 12(f) did not empower the court to 

strike the claims for damages, the Ninth Circuit explained: 

Were we to read Rule 12(f) in a manner that allowed litigants to use it as a means to 

dismiss some or all of a pleading ... we would be creating redundancies within the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because a Rule 12(b)(6) motion (or a motion for 

summary judgment at a later stage in the proceedings) already serves such a purpose ... 

We therefore hold that Rule 12(f) does not authorize district courts to strike claims 

for damages on the ground that such claims are precluded as a matter of law.

Id. at 974-75 (emphasis added). Further, the Court observed the plaintiff’s claims for damages were not 

encompassed within the categories of matters that may be stricken pursuant to Rule 12(f), and could not 

be considered immaterial “because whether these damages are recoverable relates directly to the 

plaintiff’s underlying claim for relief.” Id. at 974. 

Consequently, this Court has denied motions to strike prayers for punitive damages because a 

claim for damages does not satisfy one of the five categories of material that may be stricken under 

Rule 12(f)). See, e.g., Estate of Prasad ex rel. Prasad v. Cnty. of Sutter, 958 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1128 

(E.D. Cal. 2013). Likewise, “Rule 12(f) is not the appropriate avenue” to strike a request for attorneys’ 

fees, even where the plaintiff is proceeding pro se and fails to identify a legal basis for the request. Yu 

v. Design Learned, Inc., 2016 WL 3541046 at *8 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2016); see also Lexington Ins. Co. 

v. Energetic Lath & Plaster, Inc., 2015 WL 5436784, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2015) (denying a

motion to strike punitive damages and attorney’s fee allegations pursuant to Rule 12(f), in light of the 

Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Whittlestone that the rule “does not authorize a district court to strike ‘a claim 

for damages on the basis that it is precluded as a matter of law’”). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to 

Case 1:16-cv-00489-JLT Document 43 Filed 01/06/17 Page 9 of 10
10

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

strike portions of Plaintiff’s prayer is DENIED without prejudice.

V. Conclusion and Order

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim against defendant 

Galland is DENIED;

b. Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of the First Amendment against defendants 

Knutson and Watts is DISMISSED with leave to amend;

c. Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Fourth and Ninth Amendments are 

DISMISSED without leave to amend;

2. Defendants’ motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) is DENIED; and

3. Plaintiff MAY file any Second Amended Complaint within thirty days of the date of 

service of this Order. If Plaintiff chooses to not file a Second Amended Complaint,

within the same thirty days, he SHALL notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only 

upon his claim for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and on his First 

Amendment claim against Defendant Galland. In that event, the First Amended 

Complaint will be remain the operative complaint in the action, with the claims for 

violations of the Fourth and Ninth Amendments dismissed as to all defendants and the 

First Amendment violation dismissed as to Knutson and Watts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00489-JLT Document 43 Filed 01/06/17 Page 10 of 10