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.

Luis Alejandre v. City of Napa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 30, 2013

LUIS ALEJANDRE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF NAPA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Docket No. 17

Plaintiff in this action alleges that he was subjected to excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights when he was beaten by a police officer and then shot in the face and 15 severely injured. He asserts claims against the officer involved and the City of Napa under both 16 state and federal law. Defendants seek dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims, pointing to allegations in Plaintiff's original complaint which are not included in his amended complaint; Defendants 18 argue that when these original allegations are considered, Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law 19 because the Defendant officer acted reasonably. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff's 20 allegations against the city seeking to establish liability on the basis of inadequate training, a 21 policy or practice of excessive force, or ratification of the officer's action, are not supported by 22 sufficient factual allegations. 23

The Court has reviewed the allegations in Plaintiff's First Amended complaint and finds 24 that Plaintiff's claims satisfy the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure, consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 26 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). To the extent the original complaint may 27 contain allegations that support an inference that the officer acted reasonably or that Defendants 28 are not liable on Plaintiff's claims, those allegations are merely evidence that gives rise to fact questions, which may not be resolved on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Huey v. 2

Honeywell, Inc.., 82 F.3d 327, 333 (9th Cir. 1996).*fn1 Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED. The 3

Court vacates the May 17, 2013 motion hearing pursuant to Civ.L.R. 7-1(b). The Case 4

Management Conference set for the same date at 1:30 p.m. shall remain on calendar. 5

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.