United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS RE: DKT. NO. 14
A WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge.
March 1, 2019, Defendants City and County of San Francisco
and Trent Rhorer filed a motion for judgment on the
18, 2019, the Court held a hearing, and, after careful
consideration of the parties' arguments and the
applicable legal authority, for the reasons set forth below,
GRANTS Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
August 17, 2017, Plaintiff Jesus Torres, proceeding pro se,
filed the instant suit against “San Francisco Human
Services Agency, ” which is a department of the City
and County of San Francisco, and Trent Rhorer in his official
capacity in San Francisco Superior Court. The Summons and
Complaint was served on Defendants on November 8, 2018.
complaint alleges that the benefits that he was receiving
through the County Adult Assistance Program (“CAAP
program”)-a workforce program for low-income San
Franciscans-were improperly terminated. The Department of
Human Services (“DHS”) administers the CAAP
program on behalf of the City, providing financial assistance
and social services to indigent adults through programs, such
as Personal Assistance Employment Services
(“PAES”). (Defs.' Mot. at 3 (citing S.F.
Ordinance No. 153-16).) Plaintiff claims that his PAES
benefits were terminated on or around October 1, 2016, and
that he did not receive notice of the proposed action, which
resulted in him not having a hearing held until 25 days after
his request. (Compl. at 3; Pl.'s Opp'n at 3.)
Plaintiff claims that he reapplied for PAES assistance in
February 2017, and that his benefits were restored as of
February 3, 2017. (Pl.'s Opp'n at 3.)
alleges five causes of action: (1) deprivation of benefits
“without good cause, due process of a fair
hearing”; (2) a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) a violation
of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (4)
violation of various San Francisco municipal codes; and (5)
negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Compl. at 3).
March 1, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. (Defs.' Mot., Dkt. No. 14.) On May 22, 2019,
Plaintiff filed an amended opposition. (Pl.'s
Opp'n, Dkt. No. 24.) On May 31, 2019, Defendants filed a
reply. (Defs.' Reply, Dkt. No. 26.)
16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a declaration in support of
“the Opposition to the Reply by San Francisco's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.” (Dkt. No. 30.)
Plaintiff did not obtain leave to file any other documents
pertaining to the instant motion, so his declaration is
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) allows a party to move for
judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed but
early enough not to delay trial. “[T]he same standard
of review applicable to a Rule 12(b) motion applies to its
Rule 12(c) analog, ” because the motions are
“functionally identical.” Dworkin v. Hustler
Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). A
Rule 12(c) motion may thus be predicated on either (1) the
lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts
to support a cognizable legal claim. See Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
1990). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(c),
the court “must accept all factual allegations in the
complaint as true and construe them in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party.” Fleming v.
Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009).
pleadings are liberally construed. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). “A pro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers
. . . .” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 (internal
citations omitted). When a court grants a Rule 12(c) motion,
leave to amend should be freely given if it is possible that
further factual allegations will cure any defect. See
Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 960 (9th Cir.
initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff's
complaint, drafted on a Judicial Council of California form,
does not contain sufficient facts to satisfy pleading
standards under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While
Plaintiff's opposition provides sufficiently more factual
allegations, some of which are cited in this order, those
cannot be properly considered in deciding the instant motion,
but are included for the sake of clarity. ...