Astorga v. County of San Diego

Opinion

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYLER ASTORGA, an individual, ) Case No.: 3:21-cv-00463-BEN-LL ) Plaintiff, 12 ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. ) MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT ) 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; KEVIN ) [ECF No. 5] BOEGLER, in his individual 15 capacity; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, ) ) 16 Defendant. ) 17 ) ) 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Plaintiff Tyler Astorga, an individual (“Plaintiff”), brings this action against 21 Defendants the County of San Diego; William Gore, in his individual and official capacity 22 (“Sheriff Gore”); Kevin Boegler, in his individual capacity (“Deputy Boegler”); and 23 DOES 1-25, inclusive (collectively, “Defendants”). Complaint, ECF No. 1. 24 Before the Court is the Sheriff Gore’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure 25 to State a Claim (the “Motion”). ECF No. 5. After considering the papers submitted, 26 supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court DENIES the Motion as MOOT 27 due to the filing of an amended complaint and dismisses the doe defendants in accordance 28 with the Court’s previous order. 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 This case is one of three cases filed in the Southern District pertaining to the Black 3 Lives Matter protests that took place on May 30, 2020, in La Mesa, California. See 4 Horton v. County of San Diego et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00400-H-BGS; Segura v. City of 5 La Mesa et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00565-JM-MDD. 6 A. Statement of Facts 7 Plaintiff, an eighteen (18) year-old, alleges that on May 30, 2020, he and his friends 8 decided to join in a Black Lives Matter protest taking place in La Mesa, California. 9 Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3, ¶ 1. When he arrived in La Mesa, he claims he was taken aback 10 by the energy and sheer number of people, so he and his friends decided to leave the 11 protest area and head home. Id. at 3, ¶ 3. Plaintiff alleges he arrived at his car around 12 midnight, got to his vehicle without incident, and started driving home. Id. at 3, ¶¶ 3-4. 13 While driving his car past the intersection of La Mesa Boulevard and Spring Street, 14 Plaintiff and his vehicle were hit with several metal-projectile beanbag rounds, fired from 15 a shotgun. Id. Plaintiff was struck in the head by a metal projectile bean bag round, 16 lacerating his head. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he “was properly driving in the street and 17 following traffic laws when he was struck,” but that “[t]he only thing Plaintiff did prior 18 to getting shot, was yell: ‘Fuck the police’ as he drove his vehicle past the officers.” Id. 19 at 3, ¶ 4, 3-4, ¶ 5. 20 On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a claim for damages with the County of San Diego, 21 as required by California Government Code § 910. Compl. at 3, ¶ 9. Plaintiff did not 22 receive a response to his claim. Id. 23 B. Procedural History 24 On March 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed his complaint pleading claims for relief for (1) 25 excessive force against Deputy Boegler and Does 1 through 50 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 26 1983 and his Fourth Amendment rights; (2) failure to properly train against the County 27 of San Diego pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services 28 1 of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); (3) battery against Deputy Boegler; (4) 2 intentional infliction of emotional distress against Deputy Boegler; (5) violation of the 3 Ralph Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7, against Deputy Boegler, the County of San Diego, and 4 Does 1 through 25; and (6) violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, 5 against Deputy Boegler, the County of San Diego, and Does 1 through 25. See Compl., 6 ECF No. 1. 7 Sheriff Gore was served with the Complaint on April 30, 2021, and had until May 8 21, 2021 to respond. ECF No. 3 at 2. However, on May 10, 2021, Plaintiff and Sheriff 9 Gore filed a Joint Motion to Extend Sheriff Gore’s Time to Respond to the Complaint to 10 June 4, 2021, ECF No. 3, which the Court granted on May 12, 2021, ECF No. 4. 11 On June 4, 2021, Sheriff Gore timely filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State 12 a Claim, which was set to be heard on July 12, 2021, arguing that (1) the official capacity 13 claim against Sheriff Gore was duplicative and not viable given Plaintiff also asserted a 14 Monell claim and (2) the individual capacity claims failed to allege facts showing Sheriff 15 Gore’s involvement in supervision, policy implementation, or ratification leading to a 16 violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights. ECF No. 5-1 at 7. 17 On June 25, 2021, however, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging the 18 same six claims for relief but removing Sheriff Gore as a defendant and removing the 19 official capacity allegations against Deputy Boegler, which the Court had noted were 20 duplicative in light of the Monell claim. ECF No. 6. 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 “It is well-established in our circuit that an ‘amended complaint supersedes the 23 original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” Ramirez v. Cty. of San 24 Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (reversing the court’s granting of the 25 defendants’ motion to dismiss the superseded first amended complaint and the resulting 26 dismissal of the case because the timely filed second amended complaint mooted the 27 motion to dismiss targeted at Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, which was no longer in 28 effect). “[A]n issue is moot when deciding it would have no effect within the confines of 1 || the case itself.” Tur v. YouTube, Inc., 562 F.3d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, Sheriff 2 ||Gore’s Motion to Dismiss sought to dismiss Plaintiffs original complaint, which is no 3 || longer operative due to Plaintiffs filing of his First Amended Complaint. Thus, granting 4 || Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss would have no effect within the confines of this case. 5 ||IV. CONCLUSION 6 For the above reasons, the Court DENIES Sheriff Gore’s Motion to Dismiss as 7 || MOOT and vacates the hearing set for July 12, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. The Court’s ruling is g || without prejudice to ability to file a new motion to dismiss the new operative pleading, g || Should one be appropriate under the law. 10 Additionally, the Court noted in its previous order that the Federal Rules of Civil 11 || Procedure do not permit doe defendants unless the plaintiff “makes specific allegations as 12 || to how each doe defendant violated the plaintiff's rights.” ECF No. 4 at 2:24-28. □□□□□□□□□□□ 13 ||First Amended Complaint still includes Does | through 25 but includes no specific 14 allegations as to how each individual doe defendant violated Plaintiff's constitutional 15 |[tights. Accordingly, Does 1 through 25 are dismissed. See, e.g., Cavanaugh v. Cty. of San 16 || Diego, No. 3:18-CV-02557-BEN-LL, 2020 WL 6703592, at *25 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020), 17 ||Judgment entered, No. 18-CV-02557-BEN-LL, 2020 WL 6702029 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 18 || 2020) (dismissing Does 1 through 50 after noting “sua sponte, that the SAC also includes 19 || allegations against Does 1 through 50,” which is improper”). Plaintiff may seek leave to 209 |}amend the complaint to add any additional parties that Plaintiff may find appropriate to 91 pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. " 23 || DATED: July 6, 2021 24 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge 26 27 28 _4-