Schmidt

MEMORANDUM **

Denise Schmidt appeals the district court’s dismissal of her claims against Contra Costa County, the chief executive officer of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, and four Superior Court judges pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction to hear Schmidt’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 . Our review is de novo, Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir.2003), and we reverse.

The district court improperly reviewed and relied on matters outside the pleadings in deciding the defendants’ 12(b)(6) motions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d) (“If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) ..., matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.”). For example, in discussing Schmidt’s § 1983 claim against Contra Costa County, the court noted that “[although the [amended complaint] did not so allege, documents produced in the course of discovery do suggest that Mary Ann Mason, deputy county counsel for [the] County,…