The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MAURICIO BERNAL, an individual, Case No.: 24-cv-01668-W-DEB
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
13 v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
government entity; RICHARD PHAM,
15 [DOC. 41]
an individual; T. GONZALEZ, an
16 individual; and DOES 1 through 20.
Defendants.
17
18
19
20 The County of San Diego, Richard Pham, T. Gonzalez, and Does 1 through 20
21 (“collectively Defendants”), move to dismiss Mauricio Bernal’s (“Plaintiff”) third
22 amended complaint (“TAC”). (Mtd. [Doc. 41].) Plaintiff opposes. (Opp’n [Doc. 46].)
23 Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. (Reply [Doc. 47].) The
24 Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument pursuant to
25 Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons discussed below the Court DENIES IN PART
26 and GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motion to dismiss. [Doc. 41.]
27
28
1 I. BACKGROUND
2 This lawsuit arises out of events that allegedly took place at the San Diego County
3 Jail (“SDCJ”). (TAC [Doc. 35] at ¶ 21.) Plaintiff, an inmate at the jail, alleges that on July
4 25, 2023, at approximately 7:00 a.m., he and other inmates were lined up “near a metal
5 staff sliding door to be patted down by floor deputies.” (Id. at ¶¶ 21–23.) Defendants
6 Pham and Gonzalez were the floor deputies tasked with pat-down searches at the time. (Id.
7 at ¶ 24.) Plaintiff alleges that video footage showcases him positioned near the open metal
8 staff doorway and being pat-down by Pham and Gonzalez as the door begins to close. (Id.
9 at ¶ 25.) In the video, Pham and/or Gonzalez are “seen pushing and/or guiding Plaintiff’s
10 arms upwards towards the moving door,” which caused Plaintiff to place his hands on the
11 “wall/door” area while it was closing. (Id.) The heavy metal door then closed on
12 Plaintiff’s right hand, “causing the amputation of his thumb and permanent injury to his
13 index finger (“Subject Incident”).” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he experienced “severe pain and
14 shock” and “was transported to Scripps Mercy Hospital for medical attention.” (Id.)
15 Following the Subject Incident, Plaintiff alleges Does 1–20 denied him from being
16 “treated by the infirmary every day, like [Plaintiff] was supposed to,” and denied
17 providing Plaintiff with “any other medical documents or updates regarding Plaintiff’s
18 medical condition or the needed care for his fingers.” (Id. at ¶ 26.) One or two days after
19 the Subject Incident, Does 1–20 ordered Plaintiff to work and take out the trash,
20 consciously disregarding his “open and exposed wound” and increasing his emotional
21 suffering. (Id. at ¶ 27.) Plaintiff alleges his emotional suffering was further exacerbated by
22 Does 1–20’s mockery and taunting: they would give him “thumbs up” gestures and drew a
23 severed finger on a sliding door with a marker. (Id. at ¶¶ 28–30.) Plaintiff alleges the acts
24 and omissions of Defendants caused him to suffer constitutional violations, physical and
25 emotional damages, medical expenses, and impairment of earning potential. (Id. at ¶ 32.)
26 In a prior order, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to
27 dismiss the second amended complaint (“SAC”). (Second Order [Doc. 24] at 10.) The
28 case was ordered to “proceed as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and Bane Act Claims
1 against the remaining Doe defendants [Does 1–20].” (Id.) Plaintiff filed the TAC on
2 January 9, 2026, which Defendants now move to dismiss. (TAC; Mtd.)
3
4 II. LEGAL STANDARD
5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for “failure to state a
6 claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “A pleading that states
7 a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
8 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is
9 appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to
10 support a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pac. Police Depot, 901 F.2d 696, 699
11 (9th Cir. 1990).
12 “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’
13 requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
14 cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). When
15 considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all “well-pleaded factual
16 allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). However, a court is not
17 “required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions
18 of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979,
19 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-
20 conclusory factual content, and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly
21 suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d
22 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted).
23
24 III. DISCUSSION
25 A. Plaintiff Properly Redlined the SAC
26 As a preliminary matter, Defendants allege that Plaintiff failed to comply with the
27 Southern District of California’s Local Rule 15.1(b) which requires an amended pleading
28 to show how the “proposed amended pleading differs from the operative pleading,” such
1 as through redlining or strikeouts. S.D. Cal. Local Rule 15.1(b). This argument lacks
2 merit. Plaintiff has attached a marked-up version of the SAC that clearly delineates the
3 differences between the SAC and TAC. (See [Doc. 35-1].) Therefore, Defendants’
4 suggestion that Plaintiff be sanctioned is improper.
5 B. The Negligence Claim is Within the Scope of the TAC
6 Defendants also categorize Plaintiff’s negligence claim as an effort of
7 “gamesmanship,” alleging that it is an improper re-assertion of previously dismissed
8 battery, unlawful search, and Monell claims. (Mtd. at 4:3–28.) In a Court granted joint
9 stipulation, the parties agreed that “[b]ased on the new information provided in discovery,
10 Plaintiff may file the Third Amended Complaint.” (Joint Stipulation [Doc. 33] at 3:18–
11 19.) The stipulation also stated that “Plaintiff will not re-assert any causes of [action] or
12 issues previously considered and ruled upon by the Court in the Court’s prior Motion to
13 Dismiss Order.” (Id. at 3:24–26.) Therefore, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s negligence
14 claim is “outside the scope of this Court’s prior orders and joint motion.” (Id. at 4:9–10.)
15 This Court disagrees.
16 Upon the new information uncovered in discovery, Plaintiff is alleging negligence
17 liability based on Defendants’ breach of the “special relationship between jailer and
18 prisoner” which imposes a duty on the former to care for the latter. Giraldo v. Department
19 of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 168 Cal. App. 4th 231, 251 (2008). This allegation is
20 predicated on its own elements that are distinct from battery, an unlawful search, and
21 Monell claims. Therefore, the negligence claim is not outside the scope of the
22 amendments previously permitted by this Court.
23 C. The Negligence Claim Against Pham and Gonzalez is Not Time Barred
24 Next, Defendants argue that the negligence claim against Pham and Gonzalez
25 should be dismissed because it is time barred under California’s two-year statute of
26 limitations for negligence. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1; (Mtd. at 6:17–18.) In
27 contrast, Plaintiff argues that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) permits the addition of
28 Pham and Gonzalez as Defendants because the amendment relates back to the date of the
1 original complaint. (Opp’n at 11:4–13:18.)
2 Under Rule 15(c)(1)(A), an amendment relates back when “the law that provides
3 the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back.” Here, because California law
4 supplies the applicable statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s negligence claim, the Court
5 considers both California and federal law and applies whichever provides the more
6 permissive relation back standard. Butler v. Nat'l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d
7 1191, 1201 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that Rule 15(c)(1) requires courts to consider both
8 state and federal law and apply the more permissive relation-back standard.)
9 Under Rule 15(c), an amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading
10 when “the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction,
11 or occurrence set out—or attempted to be set out—in the original pleading,” and “the
12 amendment changes the party or naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted.”
13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(A); (c)(1)(B); 15(c)(1)(C). The newly named party must have
14 “received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced” and “knew or should
15 have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake
16 concerning the party’s proper identity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C)(i); 15(c)(1)(C)(ii). A
17 mistake encompasses “a wrong action or statement proceeding from faulty judgment,
18 inadequate knowledge, or inattention.” Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. p. A., 560 U.S. 538,
19 548–49 (2010) (citing Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1446 (2002)). The
20 relevant inquiry is whether the “prospective defendant knew or should have known [the
21 Doe’s identity] . . . not what the plaintiff knew or should have known at the time of filing
22 her original complaint.” Id. at 548.
23 Here, in the government claim and original complaint, Plaintiff alleges that there
24 were unidentified deputies who were responsible for amputating his thumb with the metal
25 door. The government claim states “[o]ne San Diego Sheriff Deputy ordered Claimant to
26 line up against the wall near a sliding door” and “a San Diego Sherriff Deputy shut the
27 door on CLAIMANT’S dominant right hand, amputating his thumb and permanently
28 injuring his index finger.” (Gov. Tort Claim [Mtd Exh. A] at 6.) The original complaint
1 states that “DOES 1 – 5 forcefully and aggressively directed Plaintiff to the location
2 where Plaintiff was to stand,” and “DOES 6 – 10 shut the metal sliding door on
3 Plaintiff’s dominant right hand, amputating his thumb and permanently injuring his index
4 finger.” (Compl. at ¶¶ 21–22.) Therefore, up until the TAC, Plaintiff consistently alleged
5 that unidentified deputies caused his injury, such that it is clear the amended complaint
6 “arose out of” the same occurrence set out in both the original complaint and government
7 claim, and that Plaintiff’s “mistake concerning the party’s proper identity”1 and labeling
8 them as Does was the result of a lack of knowledge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B);
9 15(c)(1)(C)(ii).
10 It is also reasonable to conclude that the County, Pham, and Gonzalez knew that
11 they were the deputies described as Does in the government claim and original complaint.
12 They were likely aware of the government claim, ongoing litigation, and had access to the
13 footage eventually disclosed in discovery. Defendants therefore “knew or should have
14 known” the identities of the deputies involved in the incident who Plaintiff sought to state
15 a claim against. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C)(ii). Constructive notice is also satisfied
16 when a newly named defendant has a “sufficient community of interest” with an already
17 named defendant “to justify imputing knowledge of the action from the former to the
18 latter.” Mayshack v. Gonzales, 437 Fed. Appx. 615, 621 (2011) (quoting G.F. Co. v. Pan
19 Ocean Shipping Co., Ltd., 23 F.3d 1498, 1503 (9th Cir. 1994)). In Mayshack, the newly
20 named defendant, who had previously been identified as a “unknown sheriff’s deputy,”
21
22
23 1 Defendants argue that “[i]gnorance of an individual’s name does not constitute a mistake for the
purposes of Rule 15,” citing Boss v. City of Mesa, 746 Fed. Appx. 692, 695 (2018) for support. (Reply at
24
3:21–22). Boss states, “[r]eplacing a ‘John Doe’ defendant with the actual name of a defendant is not a
25 ‘mistake’ that allows relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C).” However, as the court in Clark v. Wash.
Dep’t of Corr., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86469 at * 10 (2026) makes clear, “in Boss, the plaintiff conceded
26 that there was no mistake regarding the proper parties’ identities, and that he simply wanted to replace a
John Doe with a named defendant.” This form of replacement does not constitute a mistake sufficient to
27 relate back under Rule 15. Here, however, as already articulated, Plaintiff is not arbitrarily replacing
Does with Pham and Gonzalez but has identified them through discovery.
28
1 had a “sufficient community of interest” with the named defendant because he was the
2 named defendant’s employee and shared an attorney. Id. at 619, 621. The same is true
3 here: Pham and Gonzalez are employed by the County and share an attorney. Thus,
4 Plaintiff has satisfied the technical elements of Rule 15 since the amendment arises out of
5 the same factual occurrence alleged in the original complaint, Plaintiff was mistaken as to
6 the identities of Pham and Gonzalez, and Defendants knew or should have known that, but
7 for Plaintiff’s mistake, they would have been named.
8 Defendants nevertheless contend that Plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 15’s technical
9 requirements because the TAC retains the same number of Doe Defendants even though
10 Pham and Gonzalez have now been identified. In doing so, Defendants improperly import
11 a requirement of California Civil Procedure § 474 into the federal relation back analysis.
12 Section 474, California’s relation back provision, permits a plaintiff to sue an unidentified
13 defendant under a fictious designation and later amend the complaint to substitute the
14 defendant’s true name. Strict compliance with § 474 is not required, and California policy
15 requires the statute be liberally construed. See Lindley v. Gen. Elec. Co., 780 F.2d 797,
16 801 (1986); Woo v. Superior Ct., 75 Cal. App. 4th 169, 177 (1999). Accordingly, when a
17 plaintiff fails to substitute a newly identified defendant for a fictitious Doe defendant,
18 California courts “have considered noncompliance with the party substitution
19 requirements of section 474 as a procedural defect that could be cured and have been
20 lenient in permitting rectification of the defect.” Woo, 75 Cal. App. 4th at 177 (citing
21 Streicher v. Tommy’s Electric Co., 164 Cal. App. 3d 876, 884–885 (1985); Liberty
22 Transport, Inc. v. Harry W. Gorst Co., 229 Cal. App. 3d 417, 428 (1991)).
23 Thus, although Plaintiff may not have strictly complied with § 4742, Plaintiff
24 satisfied the requirements of Rule 15(c). Because the federal standard is more permissive,
25 the Court applies Rule 15’s relation back standard. Under that standard, Plaintiff’s claims
26
27
2 If Plaintiff had strictly complied with § 474, Pham and Gonzalez would have been substituted as Doe
28
1 against Pham and Gonzalez relate back to the original complaint and are therefore not
2 barred by the statute of limitations.
3 D. Substantial Compliance with the Government Tort Claim
4 Under California Government Code § 910, a claim must provide the claimant’s
5 name, address, date, place, and circumstances of the occurrence; a general description of
6 the injury, damage, or loss; the names of the responsible employees, if known; and the
7 amount of the claim. Cal. Gov’t Code § 910. Although the California Government Claims
8 Act generally requires the identification of the public employees who caused the alleged
9 injury, a claimant may “plead[] and prove[]” that their identities were unknown or
10 unknowable at the time the claim was submitted. Cal. Gov’t Code § 950.4. To assert a
11 California state law claim against a public entity, there must be sufficient claim
12 presentation. Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.4.
13 The California Supreme Court has explained that “a defect in the form of
14 compliance is not fatal so long as there is substantial compliance with the essentials of the
15 requirement.” Hall v. Los Angeles, 19 Cal. 2d 198, 202 (1941). In Dillard v. County of
16 Kern, the court found substantial compliance in the claim presented to the public entity
17 when the claimants omitted the identities of the individuals who caused the damage but
18 provided clear “details as to the nature of the claim,” “[t]he time and place of the
19 collision,” and “[t]he extent and amount of the injury or damage.” Dillard v. Cty. of Kern,
20 23 Cal. 2d 271, 278 (1943).
21 Furthermore, California courts have recognized that “a claim that substantially fails
22 to comply . . . may still be considered . . . if it puts the public entity on notice both that the
23 claimant is attempting to file a valid claim and that litigation will result if the matter is not
24 resolved.” Del Real v. City of Riverside, 95 Cal. App. 4th 761, 769 (2002). As the
25 California Supreme Court has explained, the Act’s purpose is “to give the entity the
26 opportunity to investigate and settle the claim before suit [i]s brought.” State of California
27 v. Superior Ct., 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1244, 90 P.3d 116, 121 (2004). The California Supreme
28 Court explained further:
1 The statute does not require that the officers or employees be named or that
their duties or official capacity be described. If the purpose of the statute is to
2
enable the county to make an investigation and determine the claim on the
3 merits, there is substantial compliance when it is advised that . . . its agents and
servants caused the injury without further describing them. The employer . . .
4
is more apt to know the names and capacities of its employees.
5
Dillard, 23 Cal. 2d at 278.
6
Here, Plaintiff’s government claim includes the basic necessary information (name,
7
date, place of occurrence) as well as indicating that he believed certain deputies with
8
unknown identities were responsible for causing his injury. For example, the government
9
claim alleges that “[o]ne San Diego Sheriff Deputy ordered Claimant to line up against the
10
wall near a sliding door” and “a San Diego Sherriff Deputy shut the door on
11
CLAIMANT’S dominant right hand, amputating his thumb and permanently injuring his
12
index finger.” (Gov. Tort Claim at 6.) It also alleges that deputies violated Claimant’s
13
federal civil rights and state constitutional rights through several actions, including
14
depriving him of “freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.” (Id.) Therefore, the
15
government claim contains sufficient information to substantially comply with
16
Government Code § 910.
17
18
1. Notice of State Claims
Defendants, however, argue that Plaintiff’s government claim failed to provide
19
notice of his negligence and Bane Act claims. (Mtd. at 5:3–6:11.) They contend that this
20
case is analogous to Fall River Joint Unified School District v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.
21
App. 3d. 431, 434 (1988). There, a defective door slammed the plaintiff’s head against a
22
steel door frame, and the original complaint alleged that the defendant was liable for
23
“knowingly allowing a dangerous condition” or negligently maintaining the school
24
premises. Id. at 434. The plaintiff later amended the complaint to allege a new claim for
25
negligently failing to supervise students. Id. The court held that the new claim was barred
26
because it was based “on an entirely different factual basis than what was set forth in the
27
tort claim.” Id. at 435. They reasoned “that negligently maintaining an unsafe structural or
28
1 mechanical condition . . . [was not] the ‘factual equivalent’ of failing to” supervise
2 students. Id.
3 Plaintiff, in contrast, contends that this case is more analogous to Stockett v.
4 Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority, 34 Cal. 4th
5 441 (2004). There, the plaintiff alleged that he had been wrongfully terminated for reasons
6 including his support of an employee’s sexual harassment claim and objections to
7 insurance bidding. Id. at 444. The plaintiff later amended his complaint to allege that
8 “exercising his First Amendment right of free speech” was a reason for his termination.
9 Id. The California Supreme Court held that the new theory did not constitute an additional
10 claim because it arose from the same factual basis. Id. at 448–449. The court explained
11 that “if the claim gives adequate information for the public entity to investigate, additional
12 detail and elaboration in the complaint is permitted.” Id. at 449.
13 The same reasoning as Stockett applies here. Plaintiff’s government claim can be
14 reasonably read as alleging that deputies were responsible for his injury. Although the
15 government claim and TAC articulate different theories of how the injury occurred—the
16 government claim alleges that a deputy “shut the door” on Plaintiff’s finger, while the
17 TAC alleges that the deputies’ negligence caused the door to shut on his finger—both
18 attribute responsibility for the injury to the deputies. Unlike in Fall River, where
19 responsibility was attributed first to negligent structural maintenance and later to negligent
20 supervision of students, the government claim and TAC here concern the same general
21 conduct and alleged injury. Thus, as in Stockett, the government claim provided sufficient
22 information for the County to investigate the underlying incident and the deputies’ role in
23 causing Plaintiff’s injury. Accordingly, this Court agrees with Plaintiff that the negligence
24 claim against Pham and Gonzalez is based on the same factual foundation as the
25 government claim and may proceed.
26 This Court next considers whether the government claim provided sufficient notice
27 of Plaintiff’s negligence and Bane Act claims as to the remaining Defendants.
28
1 a) Notice of Negligence: Does 1–20
2 As the negligence claim concerns Does 1–20, who are the correctional officers who
3 allegedly refused Plaintiff the ability to receive daily infirmary treatment and taunted the
4 amputation of his thumb, there is as discrepancy between the factual foundation of the
5 injuries alleged in the government claim and the injuries alleged in the TAC. The
6 government claim does not allege anything about the aftermath of the incident, including
7 Plaintiff being taunted, denied medical treatment3, or being forced to handle trash with an
8 open wound such that the County would have been on notice of this claim or injury. (See
9 Gov. Tort Claim.) It simply alleges that deputies shut the door on Plaintiff’s finger. (Id.)
10 Without the government claim alleging anything beyond the immediate incident that
11 caused injury to his finger, Plaintiff failed to put the County on notice and provide them
12 with the opportunity to investigate how Does 1–20 are liable for negligence. Because
13 satisfying the California Government Claims Act is a prerequisite to bringing a claim
14 forward, Plaintiff cannot cure this defect by amending the TAC. Therefore, the negligence
15 claim against Does 1–20 is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
16 b) Notice of Negligence Against the County
17 This Court does not need to decide whether the government provided the County
18 with sufficient notice of the negligence claim against them because the County is immune.
19 “[A] public entity is not liable for: (1) an injury proximately caused by any prisoner; (2)
20 an injury to any prisoner.” Cal. Gov’t. Code 844.6(a). Subject to certain statutory
21 exceptions4, attempting to hold a public entity liable for an injury will fail. See Gilbert v.
22 Cnty. of Los Angeles, No. CV 19-08599 MWF (RAOx), 2022 WL 18110848, at *22 (C.D.
23
24
25
3 The denial of medical treatment is discussed below.
26 4 The exceptions listed in Section 844.6 include: liability based on a contract (814); repealing any
provision of Division 4 or 4.5 (814.2); inference with the right for a prisoner to obtain judicial
27 determination or review confinement (845.4); liability for knowing that a prisoner is in need of
immediate medical care and failing to furnish such care (845.6). These exceptions are not relevant to
28
1 Cal. November 29, 2022) (“[B]ecause Plaintiffs seek to hold the County liable for an
2 ‘injury to a prisoner,’ their negligence claim against the County fails.”) However,
3 “[n]othing in this section exonerates a public employee from liability for injury
4 proximately caused by his negligent of wrongful act or omission.” Cal. Gov’t. Code
5 844.6(d). Therefore, the negligence claim against the County is DISMISSED WITHOUT
6 LEAVE TO AMEND.
7 c) Notice of the Bane Act Claim Against Does 1–20
8 Regarding the Bane Act, this Court agrees with Defendants that the government
9 claim failed to provide notice to Does 1–20. (Mtd. at 6:15–28.) In the TAC, Plaintiff
10 alleges that Does 1–20 violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the
11 California Constitution, Article 1, §§ 1 and 7. (TAC at ¶ 50.) However, this Court’s prior
12 orders have determined that Plaintiff’s Bane Act claim is viable only to the extent it is
13 based on the Eighth Amendment, and that Plaintiff has failed to state claims under the
14 Fourteenth Amendment and the California Constitution. (First Order [Doc. 17] at 21:3–
15 19; Second Order at 9:27–28). Therefore, the relevant inquiry is whether the government
16 claim provided the County with notice of Plaintiff’s alleged Eighth Amendment violation.
17 Although the Bane Act is expressly identified in the government claim, the
18 reference alone is insufficient to provide notice of the particular conduct underlying the
19 claim. (See Gov. Tort Claim at 6.) The government claim must contain facts to indicate, at
20 least generally, how Does 1–20 allegedly violated Plaintiff’s rights. Here, the government
21 claim alleges that Plaintiff was denied several constitutional deprivations. (Gov. Tort
22 Claim at 6.) However, it does not allege that Plaintiff was denied, delayed, or otherwise
23 deprived of adequate medical treatment. (See id.) The absence of any allegation
24 concerning improper medical treatment failed to provide the County with notice that it
25 should investigate whether Does 1–20 caused Plaintiff harm through inadequate medical
26 care.
27 The TAC, by contrast, bases Plaintiff’s Bane Act claim on allegations that Does 1–
28 20 were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. (See TAC at ¶ 53.)
1 Because that factual theory was not presented in the government claim, the TAC asserts a
2 materially different factual basis for the Bane Act than the one presented to the County.
3 Accordingly, the Bane Act5 claim against Does 1–20 is DISMISSED WITHOUT
4 LEAVE TO AMEND.
5 E. The Surviving Negligence Claim Against Pham and Gonzalez
6 Defendants also argue that Plaintiff fails to assert a valid negligence claim because
7 the “TAC lacks any facts to show that the alleged duties and breach caused Plaintiff’s
8 injuries,” and “also failed to plead causation and damages.” (Mtd. at 9:3–27.) This Court
9 disagrees.
10 To state a valid negligence claim against Pham and Gonzalez, Plaintiff must
11 establish duty, breach, causation, and damages. See Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 26 Cal. 4th
12 1200, 1205 (2001). Jail officials owe “a duty to exercise reasonable care in conducting
13 searches and operating jail facilities to prevent foreseeable injuries to inmates in their
14 custody,” and such duty arises from a special “jailer – prisoner” relationship. (TAC at ¶¶
15 59–60); see Giraldo v. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 168 Cal. App. 4th 231, 252–53 (2008)
16 (explaining “there is a special relationship between jailer and prisoner which imposes a
17 duty of care on the jailer to the prisoner.”) “[A] jail guard does have a duty to protect
18 inmates, [but] that duty extends only to reasonably foreseeable harm.” Harding v. City &
19 County of San Francisco, 602 Fed. Appx. 380, 383 (9th Cir. 2015).
20 In Harding, the tip of the plaintiff’s finger was “severed when a door slammed on it
21 during a routine pat-down search” by a deputy. Id. at 382. There, the deputy conducting
22 the search did not direct, guide, or tell the plaintiff to place her hand on the door frame. Id.
23 Because plaintiff “voluntarily placed her hand on the door frame,” the court characterized
24 the incident as an “unfortunate accident.” Id. Ultimately, the court concluded that the
25 deputy “had no duty to ensure that [plaintiff] did not place her own finger in the door
26
27
5 Defendants raise several other issues with the Bane Act claim. However, since the Court finds the Bane
28
1 frame.” Id. at 383–84 (citing Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC, 175 Cal. App. 4th 650,
2 658, 96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 (2009) (defendant not liable for negligence because it had no
3 duty to protect the plaintiff from an obvious risk that the plaintiff knowingly assumed)).
4 This case is distinguishable from Harding because Plaintiff alleges he was lined up
5 near a closing, sliding, metal door while inmates received pat-down searches, and that
6 Pham and Gonzalez guided and/or pushed his arms up against the closing door. (TAC at ¶
7 25.) Thus, the incident cannot be characterized as the unfortunate result of Plaintiff’s own
8 decision-making. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that this conduct breached the jailer’s duty to
9 keep him safe from unreasonable harm since it caused him to place his fingers in harms
10 way. (TAC at ¶¶ 60–62.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered several damages
11 because of this incident, including physical impairment, grief, anxiety, and past and future
12 medical expenses. (TAC at ¶ 32.) Therefore, Plaintiff has adequately alleged duty, breach,
13 causation, and damages, such that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the negligence claim
14 against Pham and Gonzalez is DENIED.
15 F. The Eighth Amendment Claim Against Does 1–20 – Deliberate
16 Indifference to Serious Medical Needs § 1983 – is Sufficient
17 Lastly, Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has improperly used “group pleading” to
18 state allegations against Does 1–20. (Mtd. at 12:4–13:27.) This Court disagrees.
19 While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly allow the naming of
20 fictious or anonymous parties, “where the identity of the alleged defendant is not known
21 prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through
22 discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not
23 uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.”
24 Hernandez v. San Bernardino Cnty., 2023 WL 3432206, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2023)
25 (quoting Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999)). Still, a “Section
26 1983 action must allege how each individual defendant directly participated in the
27 violation of the plaintiff’s rights.” Id. Thus, while a plaintiff “may refer to unknown
28 defendants as Defendant John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3 and so on . . . he must
1 allege specific facts showing how each particular doe defendant violated his rights.”
2 Keavney v. Cnty. of San Diego, 2020 WL 4192286, at *4 (S.D. Cal. July 21, 2020). The
3 reason behind these requirements is to give named defendants “crucial notice of the nature
4 of the claims” at issue. Mendoza v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 2020 WL 2066142, at *4
5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2020) (noting that allegations must be “sufficient to describe the
6 involvement” of doe defendants and “put the County on notice of the nature of the claim
7 against it.”).
8 Here, Plaintiff has described the specific conduct of the Does and how such conduct
9 violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by being deliberately indifferent to his
10 serious medical needs. For instance, the TAC alleges that Does 1–20 are liable for the
11 following conduct:
12 • Failing to provide Plaintiff with adequate medical care. (TAC at ¶ 36.)
13 • Being deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s known medical needs by failing to
14 furnish medical documentation or updates, ordering him to take out the trash and
15 disregarding the risk of infecting his open wound, and taunting him with “thumbs
16 up” gestures and by drawing a severed finger on the door frame. (TAC at ¶ 40.)
17 • Refusing to allow Plaintiff to get his finger treated every day “like he was supposed
18 to.” (TAC at ¶ 40.)
19 These allegations—which specifically identifies the conduct Does 1–20 are allegedly
20 liable for—are sufficient to put the County on notice of the nature of this § 1983 claim and
21 to permit Plaintiff to attempt to uncover the Doe’s identities through discovery.
22 Defendants also argue that the TAC has broadened the allegations against the Does
23 by alleging that they are responsible for negligence and “unrelated medical treatment.”
24 (Reply at 9:19). However, this order makes clear that the negligence claim is not
25 applicable to Does 1–20 and the inadequate medical treatment alleged is directly related to
26 the injury suffered. Therefore, the claim against Does 1–20 was not improperly broadened
27 and is sufficiently pled at this stage, such that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the § 1983
28 claim against Does 1–20 is DENIED.
| |TV. CONCLUSION & ORDER
2 For the reasons discussed above, this Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES
3 || IN PART Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. 41] and ORDERS as follows:
4 e Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs first claim for deliberate indifference
5 to serious medical needs against Does 1—20 is DENTED.
6 e Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff's second claim for violation of the Bane
7 Act against Does 1-20 is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
8 e Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff's third claim for negligence against the
9 County and Does 1-20 is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND but
10 is DENIED as to Defendants Pham and Gonzalez
e The fourth amended complaint shall be filed no later than September 16, 2026.
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 Dated: September 2, 2026
14 \
16 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan
17 United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28