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.

Conner v. City of Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 9, 2010

JEFFREY E. CONNER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

Date: October 20, 2010

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Courtroom: 6

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, JONDEREK SALLEE, K. CHAN, M. HOFFMAN and G. DAHL's Motions to Dismiss and Strike provisions of the Complaint came regularly for hearing before this Court on October 20, 2010. Defendants were represented by the City Attorney, Sr. Deputy City Attorney Sheri M. Chapman appearing therefore.

Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing.

The Court having considered the moving papers, and all other matters presented to the Court, grants Defendants' Motions to dismiss and strike provisions of the Complaint.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) The claims for relief alleged against JONDEREK SALLEE and M. HOFFMAN are dismissed, without leave to amend.

(2) The second claim for relief alleging a denial of due process is dismissed, without leave to amend.

(3) The allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint pertaining to Doe Defendants are stricken.

(4) The following allegations in the first claim for relief of the Complaint are stricken:

a. "Wantonly inflicting physical pain upon arrestees who are persons of color," at paragraph 13, page 3 lines 23 and 24;

b. "Cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment," at paragraph 13, page 3 line 27;

c. "Unlawful search," at paragraph 13, page 3 line 28.

(5) The following allegations in the second claim for relief of the Complaint are stricken:

a. "The policy is unlawful and fails to afford the subject due process," at paragraph 16, page 4 line 15;

b. "The canine officers are used in a discriminatory manner," at paragraph 16, page 4 lines 15-16;

c. "Unlawful policy: charge any suspect they have abused or brutalized with resisting arrest or failing to obey an officer and subjecting them to criminal prosecution in an attempt to cover their violent acts or threaten and intimidate in order to persuade the individual whose rights have been violated not to pursue redress," at paragraph 18, page 4 lines 21-24.

(6) The following allegations in the third claim for relief of the Complaint are stricken:

a. "The Sacramento Police Department fails to train its canine officers and their handlers to control the dog appropriately," at paragraph 21, page 5 lines 4-5;

b. "and their supervisors," at paragraph 23, page 5 line 15.

(7) The following allegation in the fourth claim for relief of the Complaint is stricken:

a. "The enabling defendants and Does who surrounded plaintiff did nothing to prevent the attack by dog, taser, boot kicks and fists and thereby violated plaintiff's civil rights entitling him to damages for their deliberate acts of intimidation," paragraph26, page 6, lines 4-5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101109

© 1992-2010 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.