Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BACON v. KOLENDER

United States District Court, S.D. California


December 19, 2005.

ARNOLD C. BACON, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM B. KOLENDER and SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: BARRY MOSKOWITZ, District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND [Docket #12] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS [Docket #23]
On September 21, 2005, Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis filed a Report and Recommendation that the motion of Defendant San Diego County Board of Supervisors to dismiss be granted and Plaintiff's motion to suppress be denied. The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff's objections. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as follows:

1. Plaintiff's motion to suppress filed on August 2, 2005, is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants shall only raise Plaintiff's status and record where relevant to the issue then being considered. Nothing in Defendant's present motion is improper. Plaintiff may make a motion to strike in regard to future motion papers he believes to be improper.

  2. The motion of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors to dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice. Plaintiff does contend that certain policies of San Diego County have impacted him in violation of his rights However, Plaintiff alleges multiple violations of his rights. He must specify the precise policy and allege for each claim how it caused a violation of his rights. While detailed factual assertions are not necessary at this stage, Plaintiff must state the policy that caused each particular violation. Plaintiff has named the Board of Supervisors but in his objections argues that the County is liable. If his claim is against the County, rather than the Board of Supervisors, he should make this clear in any amended complaint. If he is naming the present Board of Supervisors, he must set forth the policy they enacted. Plaintiff shall have 30 days to file and serve an amended complaint clearing up the deficiencies noted here and in the Report and Recommendation.

  The Court discourages further motions to dismiss on these grounds. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint naming the County or the Board of Supervisors, such defendant shall be entitled to expedited discovery so it can determine whether it desires to make a motion for summary judgment on the grounds raised in its present motion.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20051219

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.