GXM v. Connie

Background

GXM, a minor, and his parents, Jessica Renee Hissner Mendoza and Victor Mendoza, sued the City and County of San Francisco, the Department of Human Resources and Public Health, and multiple City employees. The complaint alleged civil-rights violations arising from events related to GXM’s placement in foster care.

Rulings on the City’s motion to dismiss

The City moved to dismiss on three grounds: (1) claims against individually named defendants in their official capacities duplicated claims against the City; (2) the Department of Human Resources and Public Health was not a separate legal entity that could be sued; and (3) the complaint did not allege a viable claim against the City based on a municipal policy, custom, or practice.

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend as to the individual defendants. The plaintiffs could clarify whether those defendants were sued in their official or individual capacities.

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend as to the Department of Human Resources and Public Health. The opinion stated that the County was a proper defendant in a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but that a County agency was not.

The court also granted the City’s motion to dismiss the municipal-policy claim with leave to amend. The opinion explained that a § 1983 claim against a local government cannot rest only on the employer’s responsibility for its employees; the plaintiffs must allege that a government policy, custom, or practice was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation.

The plaintiffs could file an amended complaint no later than February 14, 2025. The court stated that the City could move to dismiss an amended complaint, and that any opposition to such a motion could not exceed 25 pages or rely on evidence outside the complaint. The court also stated that it would not consider additional materials submitted after the reply unless the plaintiffs first obtained permission.

Other pending motions

The motion for reconsideration of evidence, motion to amend, motion to address key issues and evidence, and four supplemental motions highlighting inconsistencies were denied as moot.

The motion to seal was granted, and the filing submitted on December 20, 2024, was ordered sealed.

The plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of counsel was denied. The court noted that the plaintiffs were proceeding without legal representation and encouraged them to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk for assistance. The court also reminded them that they still had to follow the Federal Rules, the Local Rules, and the court’s standing orders.

Disposition

Judge ARATELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN granted the City’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend as to the individual defendants and the municipal-policy claim, granted it without leave to amend as to the Department of Human Resources and Public Health, denied the specified motions as moot, granted the motion to seal, and denied the motion for appointment of counsel.