# Mascorro

> District Court, S.D. California · January 15, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11252558

## Case

- **Full name:** Eloy Mascorro v. The City of San Diego, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** January 15, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11252558

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ELOY MASCORRO, Case No.: 21-cv-1725-RSH-DDL

12 Plaintiff,
ORDER: (1) STRIKING SECOND
13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND
(2) RE-DIRECTING SERVICE OF
14 THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
PROCESS OF FIRST AMENDED
15 Defendants. COMPLAINT

16

17
18
19 On November 21, 2025, the Court issued an Order on five separate motions related
20 to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 98. Relevant here, the Court’s
21 Order granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), subject to a
22 number of express limitations. See id. Plaintiff filed a SAC on December 28, 2025. ECF
23 No. 99. For the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) STRIKES Plaintiff’s SAC; and (2)
24 DIRECTS the U.S. Marshal’s Service (“USMS”) to re-serve Plaintiff’s FAC on the
25 remaining Officer Defendants.
26 I. BACKGROUND
27 Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this action on October 5, 2021, based on an October
28 6, 2020 incident in which San Diego police officers allegedly “unlawfully detained,
1 searched, seized and arrested” him in Balboa Park in San Diego. ECF No. 1 at 2. The
2 Complaint alleged that officers knowingly arrested Plaintiff without probable cause in
3 retaliation for his prior complaints of police misconduct and prepared false police reports
4 about the incident. Id. at 2–3. The Complaint further alleged Plaintiff’s property was
5 unlawfully seized by the police and later damaged, which Plaintiff discovered when he
6 retrieved his property. Id. at 2. The Complaint did not identify specific causes of action,
7 but instead alleged that “[o]n 10/6/2020 my 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th and 14th amendment rights
8 were violated,” and further sought recovery of a civil penalty under the Bane Civil Rights
9 Act. Id. at 2, 4.
10 On May 11, 2023, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to
11 timely effectuate service of process. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff appealed. On April 29, 2025,
12 the Court of Appeals vacated the order, and remanded the case with instructions to this
13 Court to forward process to the USMS for service on the City. ECF No. 54 at 2. The
14 mandate issued on May 19, 2025. ECF No. 55. On May 22, 2025, this Court directed
15 service by the USMS. ECF No. 56. On May 28, 2025, the USMS served the Complaint on
16 the San Diego City Attorney’s Office. ECF No. 57.
17 On June 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed his FAC. ECF No. 58. The FAC names over thirty
18 defendants. In addition, while Plaintiff’s original Complaint was based on his October 6,
19 2020 arrest and discovery when he was released from jails days later that his seized
20 property had been damaged, Plaintiff’s FAC alleges over thirty incidents involving
21 Plaintiff spanning from March 2020 through February 2025. Unlike the original
22 Complaint, which did not specifically identify any causes of action, the FAC asserts eleven
23 causes of action: (1) unlawful arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) unlawful
24 search and seizure of property in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (3) retaliation in
25 violation of the First Amendment; (4) intentional misrepresentation; (5) perjury and
26 fabrication of evidence in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (6) battery; (7)
27 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (8)
28
1 Monell liability; (9) violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1; (10)
2 conversion; and (11) denial of access to the courts in violation of the First Amendment.
3 On November 21, 2025, the Court issued an Order on five motions: (1) a motion to
4 dismiss filed by the City of San Diego (the “City”), as well as individual police officers
5 and a park ranger (collectively, the “City Defendants”), ECF No. 81; (2) a motion to
6 dismiss filed by Joshua Culver, ECF No. 82; (3) a motion to dismiss filed by Universal
7 Protection Service, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services, sued as Allied Universal
8 Security (“Allied”), ECF No. 83; (4) a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by
9 Downtown San Diego Partnership, sued as San Diego DTP (“Downtown Partnership”),
10 ECF No. 95; and (5) Plaintiff’s motion to effectuate service or re-service of process, ECF
11 No. 77. ECF No. 98. In its Order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a SAC. Id. 19–
12 21, 24. On December 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a SAC. ECF No. 99.
13 II. ANALYSIS
14 A. Scope of Leave to Amend
15 In its November 21, 2025 Order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend as to
16 Claims Eight and Nine against the City Defendants, Claim Four against Allied and
17 Downtown, and Claim 10 against Downtown. ECF No. 98 at 20. In granting leave, the
18 Court held:
19
With the foregoing limitation, within forty-five (45) days of the date of
20 this order, Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint. The Court is
mindful of the fact that Plaintiff has already amended his pleading once;
21
that his amendment multiplied dramatically the number of defendants,
22 claims, and incidents at least loosely alleged to be at issue in this
lawsuit; and that, although the majority of defendants have not yet
23
appeared, been served, or had the opportunity to challenge the lawsuit,
24 significant portions of the lawsuit as amended appear to be time-barred.
Absent a further order of this Court, Plaintiff may not add further
25
defendants, claims, or incidents in his second amended pleading that
26 are not present in the Amended Complaint; although he may name any
defendant previously identified by number or as a Doe defendant,
27
provide factual elaboration of the incidents in the Amended Complaint,
28 and provide explanation of how his claims relate to the incidents
1 alleged. He may also choose to drop, narrow, or focus the defendants,
claims, or incidents at issue.
2
3 If Plaintiff fails to timely file a second amended pleading, the Court will
deem his Amended Complaint the operative pleading. If Plaintiff files
4
a second amended pleading that exceeds the scope of leave to amend
5 granted herein without further order of the Court, the Court may strike
the second amended pleading.
6
7 Id. at 20–21.
8 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, the Court may strike from a pleading “an
9 insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.
10 R. Civ. P. 12(f). “[D]istrict courts often strike new claims, parties or factual allegations of
11 an amended complaint that are beyond the permissible scope of a court’s prior order
12 granting leave to amend.” Brown v. Stroud, No. CV 08-2348 VRW, 2011 WL 13312050,
13 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2011); Strifling v. Twitter Inc., No. 22-CV-07739-JST, 2024 WL
14 54976, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2024) (“This Court and other courts in this district
15 consistently strike or dismiss parties and claims that exceed the scope of an order granting
16 leave to amend.”) (collecting cases).
17 Here, Plaintiff’s SAC exceeds the scope of the Court’s limited leave in multiple
18 respects. Specifically, the SAC: (1) names new defendants Detective Clayton, Sergeant
19 McAnnally, Officer Giovanetti, Ranger Piazza, and Ranger Cassidy1; (2) adds a new claim
20 for “Failure to Intervene/Integral Participation”; and (3) adds a number of incidents not
21 pleaded in Plaintiff’s FAC. See SAC ¶¶ 124, 128, 148, 170, 191. As examples, Plaintiff
22 newly alleges an incident occurring on April 18, 2023, in which Cassidy, Piazza, and
23 Othniel allegedly blocked Plaintiff’s path while he was riding his bicycle. Id. ¶ 124.
24 According to Plaintiff, he was unlawfully detained for failing to yield to a pedestrian,
25

26
27 1 Although Officer Giovanetti and Rangers Piazza and Cassidy were previously
identified in Plaintiff’s FAC, they were not named as a defendant and no claims appeared
28
1 despite having video evidence of the interaction. Id. The SAC also newly alleges an
2 incident occurring on February 15, 2025, in which Plaintiff was denied information by an
3 Internal Affairs dispatcher. Id. ¶ 128. Despite the Court’s advisal that an amended pleading
4 that exceeds the scope of the leave to amend may be stricken, Plaintiff filed an amended
5 pleading that clearly exceeded that scope. He did so without seeking leave of the Court.
6 Consistent with the Court’s previous advisal to Plaintiff, the Court STRIKES
7 Plaintiff’s SAC. See also Costar Grp., Inc. v. Com. Real Est. Exch., Inc., 150 F.4th 1056,
8 1064 n.1 (9th Cir. 2025) (holding that district court did not err by dismissing claims outside
9 scope of amend); Ross v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y, FSB, No. 222CV07922MCSRAO,
10 2023 WL 4290406, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2023) (striking amended complaint where
11 plaintiff added new causes of action exceeding scope of leave to amend).
12 B. Service of Process
13 The Court turns next to Plaintiff’s motion for an order re-directing service of process
14 of his FAC by the USMS as to the Officer Defendants—which the Court previously
15 granted. ECF Nos. 77; 98 at 23.
16 As the Court noted in its November 21, 2025 Order, Plaintiff filed Form 285s on the
17 docket indicating that Officer Defendants Felix Campante, Geoffrey DeCesari, Nicolas
18 Dedonato, Mackenzie Fugett, Tyler Hamby and Brian Moreno should be served at 1401
19 Broadway San Diego, California 92101. ECF No. 67. The USMS promptly delivered
20 process to a “police records clerk” as to defendants Campante, DeCesari, Fugett, Hamby
21 and Moreno. ECF Nos. 70, 72, 73, 74, 76. This service was inadequate. See ECF No. 98 at
22 22–23.
23 The Court redirects service of process as to defendants Felix Campante, Geoffrey
24 DeCesari, Nicolas Dedonato, Mackenzie Fugett, Tyler Hamby and Brian Moreno by the
25 USMS as follows. In contrast to the prior service attempt, the Court DIRECTS the USMS
26 to request waivers of personal service on Plaintiff’s behalf pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
27 Procedure 4(d).
28 ///
l The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:
2 l. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reissue a summons as to Plaintiff's FAC
3 and forward it to Plaintiff, along with blank U.S. Marshal Form 285s. Plaintiff
4 must complete and file the U.S. Marshals Form 285 as accurately as possible,
5 including a service address for each of defendants Campante, DeCesari,
6 Dedonato, Fugett, Hamby and Moreno.
7 2. Upon receipt, the Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to transmit the completed
8 Form 285s along with copies of the summons and Plaintiff's FAC to the
9 USMS for service.
10 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the USMS shall: (1) serve a copy of
11 Plaintiffs FAC and summons upon defendants Campante, DeCesari,
12 Dedonato, Fugett, Hamby and Moreno as directed by Plaintiff on the USM
13 Form 285s provided to him; (2) request waivers of personal service on
14 Plaintiff's behalf; and (3) file executed waivers of personal service upon
15 defendants Campante, DeCesari, Dedonato, Fugett, Hamby and Moreno with
16 the Clerk of Court as soon as possible after their return. Should defendants
17 Campante, DeCesari, Dedonato, Fugett, Hamby and Moreno fail to return the
18 USMS’s request for waiver of personal service within 90 days, the USMS
19 must instead file the completed Form USM 285 Process Receipt and Return
20 with the Clerk of Court, include the date the summons, FAC and request for
21 waiver was sent to such Defendant, and indicate why service remains
22 unexecuted. All costs of service will be advanced by the United States;
23 however, if defendants Campante, DeCesari, Dedonato, Fugett, Hamby and
24 Moreno are located within the United States and fail without good cause to
25 sign and return the waiver requested by the Marshal on Plaintiff's behalf, the
26 Court will impose upon such Defendant any expenses later incurred in making
27 personal service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).
28 |] ///

4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Campante, DeCesari,
2 Dedonato, Fugett, Hamby and Moreno shall, once served, respond to the FAC,
3 within the time provided by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4 In light of the Court’s Order, the Court also DENIES Plaintiff's ex parte motion for
5 || leave [ECF No. 100], Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff's SAC [ECF No. 102], and
6 || Plaintiff's cross-motion to supplement [ECF No. 104] as moot.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 || Dated: January 15, 2026 □

10 Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11252558. Public record. Not legal advice.