Flores v. Alameda County Sheriff's Department

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03515

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting County of Alameda's {{14}} Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CHRISTOPHER ROBERT FLORES, 7 Case No. 15-cv-03515-KAW Plaintiff, 8 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S MOTION 9 TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S 10 DEPARTMENT, Re: Dkt. No. 14 11 Defendant. 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 On July 30, 2015, Plaintiff Christopher Robert Flores filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 14 § 1983 against Defendant County of Alameda (sued erroneously as the "Alameda County Sheriff's 15 Department") and Does 1-10. Therein, Plaintiff alleges that, following his arrest on or about July 16 6, 2015, he was transported to Santa Rita Jail, where he informed two Sheriff's Deputies that he 17 had a seizure condition that required twice daily medication, but was told that there was no nurse 18 on duty. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 8-11.) Plaintiff claims that, despite making numerous requests, he 19 was not provided anti-seizure medication until he suffered a grand mal seizure while in custody. 20 (Compl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff's complaint consists of two causes of action, one of which is against the 21 County and the other against the doe defendants. 22 On November 3, 2015, Defendant County of Alameda filed a motion to dismiss the first 23 cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts establishing a plausible 24 Monell claim against the County of Alameda. (Def.'s Mot., Dkt. No. 14 at 1.) 25 On November 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response in which he conceded that the cause of 26 action against Defendant County of Alameda should be dismissed and the County should no 27 longer be a party to this action. (Pl.'s Resp., Dkt. No. 17 at 1-2.) Plaintiff asked that the Court's 28 order dismissing the County should reflect that Plaintiff will require the County's cooperation with 1 discovery. Id. at 2. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, specifically address how to 2 engage in discovery with non-parties, so the Court is confident that Plaintiff will avail himself of 3 the methods available. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Moreover, to the extent that the County will be 4 representing the Doe Sheriff's deputies, the Court has no basis to believe that an order requiring 5 the County to cooperate in discovery is necessary. 6 Accordingly, the Court deems this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument 7 pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS with prejudice Defendant County of Alameda's 8 motion to dismiss the first cause of action. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: December 9, 2015 __________________________________ 11 KANDIS A. WESTMORE 12 United States Magistrate Judge Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2