McNeff v. The City of Pleasanton
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-00106
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In McNeff v. Pleasanton Police Department, Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered limited supplemental briefing before ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss and vacated the hearing.
Peter McNeff must provide the ordered supplemental brief; the defendants may respond. The order does not itself dismiss the case.
What happened
In McNeff v. Pleasanton Police Department, the defendants asked the court to dismiss Peter McNeff’s Second Amended Complaint. The court said it was inclined to grant the motion and dismiss the case with prejudice, but it had not yet made that ruling.
The court identified two groups of allegations it found largely unsupported by specific facts. McNeff alleged that Chief Swing knew, or should have known, the sources of complaints against him, and that the City Manager both delegated authority to Chief Swing and approved Chief Swing’s decision to fire McNeff.
The court ordered McNeff to file a brief of no more than three pages explaining what additional facts he could provide if allowed to amend again. Defendants may respond within seven days after that filing. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin also vacated the hearing scheduled for May 30, 2024.
The detailed version
- McNeff v. The City of Pleasanton · No. 3:23-cv-00106
- Martinez-Olguin
- May 29, 2024
Background
The court considered defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The order states that the court was inclined to grant the motion and dismiss the case with prejudice, but the order itself directed additional briefing rather than entering that dismissal.
Allegations Identified by the Court
The court focused on two groups of allegations. First, McNeff alleged that Chief Swing knew, or reasonably should have known, the sources of certain complaints made against McNeff. Second, McNeff alleged that the City Manager both delegated authority to Chief Swing and ratified, meaning approved, Chief Swing’s decision to fire McNeff. The court found that both groups lacked factual context or support and cited the rule that conclusory statements alone are insufficient to support a claim.
Order
The court ordered McNeff to submit a brief of no more than three pages describing any factual details he could add to support those allegations if the court allowed another amendment. McNeff’s brief was due within seven days of the order. Defendants could file a response of no more than three pages within seven days after McNeff’s filing. The court vacated the hearing set for May 30, 2024. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin did not enter the anticipated dismissal in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.