Ward v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Roger T. Benitez (author)
Analysis
The County of San Diego moved to dismiss a Section 1983 complaint alleging constitutional violations during pre-trial detention, and the plaintiff simultaneously sought leave to amend. The court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 21 days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Dismiss Granted“The motion to dismiss is granted, without prejudice.” | agree with court The court granted the motion without prejudice, effectively treating it as a procedural step to allow amendment rather than a final determination on the merits. Since the plaintiff was granted leave to amend, the dismissal does not preclude the claims from being reasserted in an amended complaint. The court did not need to find the complaint deficient on the merits to grant dismissal without prejudice in this context. |
Leave to Amend Granted“Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint.” | agree with court The court applied the standard that leave to amend should be freely given when justice requires. It noted that the defendant did not object to the amendment, which strongly supports granting leave. The court correctly identified that the time for amendment as of right had passed, necessitating a Rule 15(a)(2) analysis, and found that justice required amendment due to the lack of opposition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule for leave to amend (Rule 15(a)(2)) and relies on the defendant's non-opposition as a key factor in granting leave. The dismissal without prejudice is a standard procedural mechanism to allow the plaintiff to cure any deficiencies in the original complaint. The court did not need to address the merits of the underlying Section 1983 claims because it was granting leave to amend.
Opinion
5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WILLIAM HOWARD WARD, ) Case No.: 23-cv-1819-BEN (BLM) ) Plaintiff, 10 ) 11 v. ) ) 12 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO entity; et al., 13 ) DISMISS AND GRANTING LEAVE Defendants. ) TO AMEND 14 ) 15 ) ) 16 ) 17 ) 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff William Howard Ward brings this action against Defendants the County 20 of San Diego (the “County”), and unnamed Doe defendants. Before the Court is the 21 County’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. The motion to dismiss is granted without 22 prejudice and Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the Complaint. 23 II. BACKGROUND 24 According to the Complaint, this case arises from events which began on 25 September 4, 2022.1 Plaintiff was arrested, but because of his physical and mental 26 27 1 For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court assumes facts pleaded in the Complaint are true. Mazarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 28 1 condition, he was first taken to a hospital. Following hospital treatment, Plaintiff was 2 placed in a jail operated by the County of San Diego. While a pre-trial detainee in the 3 jail, Plaintiff alleges he suffered physical and mental injuries in violation of his 4 constitutional rights. He now sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting claims for relief 5 against the County of San Diego and 50 unnamed Doe defendants. 6 The County moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil 7 Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend his Complaint. The County 8 objects to the procedure, noting it would have agreed to the filing of an amended 9 complaint had Plaintiff asked, but it does not object to the Plaintiff amending his 10 Complaint. See Reply in Supp. of Def’s Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt 20, at 1. 11 III. LEGAL STANDARD 12 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a court should freely give leave 13 to amend a complaint when justice requires. Here, it is too late for Plaintiff to amend as 14 of right, but justice requires leave to amend be granted in view of the Defendant’s non- 15 opposition. Therefore, without addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s proposed 16 amendments, Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 1. The motion to dismiss is granted, without prejudice. 19 2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, within 21 days of this Order. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: March 26, 2024 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28