United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT; AND (2) ISSUING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE [ECF NO.
LARRY ALAN BURNS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
has brought this action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging
that his constitutional rights were violated when he was
housed at the San Diego Central Jail (“SDCJ”) in
November of 2018. (See First Am. Compl., ECF No.
10.) Defendant County of San Diego moves to dismiss all the
claims in Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Def.'s Mot., ECF No.
11.) Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendants' Motion
to which Defendants filed a Reply. (See ECF Nos. 13,
the Motion was initially calendared before Magistrate Judge
Nita L. Stormes, the Court has determined that this Motion is
suitable for disposition upon the papers without oral
argument and that no Report and Recommendation from
Magistrate Judge Stormes is necessary.
reasons set forth more fully below Defendant's Motion is
Factual allegations 
25, 2018, Plaintiff was arrested and housed in the SDCJ.
See FAC at 4. Plaintiff was placed in “Intake
Holding #1” and “went to sleep.”
Id. One day later, Inmate George Julius
(“Julius”) “was arrested by El Centro
Police Department for violating a protective order to prevent
domestic violence.” Id. Plaintiff claims
“Doe Officers” examined Julius and “knew of
his propensity of violence.” Id. Defendant Doe
Deputy #1 purportedly told Defendant Doe Deputy #2 that
Julius “should not be placed with other inmates.”
claims that Defendants, “despite … knowing
[Julius'] propensity of violence, ” placed Julius
in the same cell as Plaintiff. Id. As a result,
Julius purportedly “walk[ed] up to Plaintiff and began
punching Plaintiff's face and body.” Id.
Plaintiff “fell off the bench” as Julius
continued to punch and kick Plaintiff “several
times.” Id. Plaintiff claims to have lost
“consciousness” during the encounter.
Plaintiff “regained consciousness, he heard deputies
telling him to get out of the cell.” Id. As he
was escorted out of the cell, he “overheard Doe Deputy
#1tell Doe Deputy, ‘I told you [Julius] shouldn't
have been placed in a cell with anyone'.”
Id. “As a result of Plaintiff being attacked,
he suffered a broken nose, contusion to his lip, fractured
back, shoulder injury, concussions, brain trauma, headaches,
memory loss, anxiety, depression and lack of focus.”
Id. at 5.
Defendant's Motion to Strike
Defendant's Motion they request that the “Court
strike the references to ‘all Defendants', ”
or in the alternative, dismiss them as a named Defendant from
Plaintiff's first, second, and fourth claims. (Def.'s
Mot. at 9.)
Plaintiff's response, he indicates that the first and
second claims in his FAC “are not alleged against the
County.” (Pl.'s Reply at 4.) Therefore, Plaintiff
“accepts Defendant County's request to strike
reference to ‘all Defendants' made in
Plaintiff's first and second claims, as said claims are
only alleged against Defendants DOE Deputies 1-10,
individually.” (Id.) Plaintiff further states
he “never intended to seek liability against the County
based on the first two claims.” (Id.)
on these representations, the Court strikes Defendant County
of San Diego from Plaintiff's first and second claims.
does not address Defendant's request to strike his fourth
claim which is a state law negligence claim. In the
Court's August 1, 2019, it was made clear that
Plaintiff's state law negligence claim was dismissed with
prejudice. (Aug. 1, 2019 Order at 2.) Plaintiff was not given
permission by the Court to re-allege this claim in his FAC.
the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Strike
Plaintiff's state law negligence claim found in count 4