Jones

I. BACKGROUND

20 On March 23, 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a 21 Complaint against Defendants City of San Diego,2 County of San Diego, and Alternate 22 23

24 1 The Motion to Dismiss states that “[t]he County’s Alternate Defender’s Office is not a separately suable 25 entity. As such, this motion is brought on behalf of both named defendants as the ‘County.’” (ECF No. 30 26 at 1 n.1.)

27 2 The City of San Diego has been dismissed from this case. (See ECF No. 11.) 1 Public Defender’s Office (“APD Office”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave 2 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which the Court granted. (See ECF Nos. 2, 5.) 3 On August 11, 2023, the County filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 9.) On February 4 28, 2024, the Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the Complaint without 5 prejudice. (ECF No. 23 at 21.) 6 On March 25, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to 7 amend the Complaint. (ECF No. 28.) 8 On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 9 (ECF No. 29, FAC.) 10 On June 14, 2024, the County filed the Motion to…