Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE DOE, Case No. 22-cv-05179-AGT

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

v. Re: Dkt. No.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants.

Following argument, the Court was planning to issue an order resolving defendants’ mo- tion to dismiss on the merits. But upon further review, the Court has become concerned that the motion and the complaint have blended together distinct legal claims in a confusing way. Plaintiff titles her first claim as a “Fourth Amendment – Unlawful Search/Seizure [Claim] under 42 U.S.C. [§] 1983.” Dkt.1 at 8. She brings this claim against Chief Scott, Mark Powell, and Kelley Fracchia. Plaintiff titles her second claim as a “Supervisory and Municipal Liability [Claim] for Unconstitutional Custom or Policy (Monell).” Id. at 9. She brings this claim against Chief Scott, Mark Powell, and the City and County of San Francisco. The second claim is really two claims in one. Supervisory liability and municipal liability are distinct concepts. Compare Ninth Cir. Model Civ. Jury Instr. § 9.4 (2022 ed.) (identifying the elements of a constitutional claim against a…