Doe v. City and County of San Francisco
- Alex Tse
- 3:22-cv-05179
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jane Doe v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Tse required a clearer amended complaint before deciding defendants’ dismissal motion.
Jane Doe, Chief Scott, Mark Powell, Kelley Fracchia, and the City and County of San Francisco are affected by the order. Jane Doe must file an amended complaint separating the § 1983 claims, and any later dismissal motion must identify the claims and grounds more clearly.
What happened
Jane Doe sued the City and County of San Francisco and others, asserting claims under a federal civil-rights law for an allegedly unlawful search or seizure and for supervisory and municipal responsibility.
The court found that the complaint combined separate legal claims and that defendants had not clearly identified whether they sought dismissal of the second claim or the grounds for dismissal. The court explained that supervisory and municipal responsibility are different claims.
The court required Jane Doe to file an amended complaint separating her claims against individual defendants, supervisors, and the municipality. Judge Tse did not resolve the dismissal motion on the merits and directed defendants to identify clearly which claims they challenge if they file another motion.
The detailed version
- Doe v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:22-cv-05179
- Alex Tse
- Dec. 21, 2022
Background
Jane Doe’s complaint asserted a first claim labeled as a Fourth Amendment unlawful search-and-seizure claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Chief Scott, Mark Powell, and Kelley Fracchia. Her second claim was labeled as a claim for supervisory and municipal responsibility based on an unconstitutional custom or policy. She brought that second claim against Chief Scott, Mark Powell, and the City and County of San Francisco.
The court’s concerns
The court explained that the second claim combined two distinct claims: supervisory liability and municipal liability. The court also identified three § 1983 claims in the complaint: the search-and-seizure claim, the supervisory-liability claim, and the municipal-liability claim.
Defendants clearly moved to dismiss the first claim. But they did not expressly say whether they also moved to dismiss the second claim. Their briefing stated that supervisory liability under § 1983 does not apply, which appeared to challenge part of the second claim, while other references treated the § 1983 claims as if they were a single claim. Because the complaint and motion blended distinct claims, the court could not determine with certainty which claims defendants sought to dismiss or the grounds for doing so.
Ruling
The court required Jane Doe to amend her complaint so that it better distinguishes her § 1983 claims against individuals, supervisors, and municipalities. The court directed her to file the amended complaint on or before January 13, 2022. It further stated that, if defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint, they should identify clearly which § 1983 claim or claims they challenge and the grounds for the motion.
The court did not resolve defendants’ motion to dismiss on the merits. The order does not state that the motion was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.