Doe

Doe v. County of Sonoma

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 25, 20233:16-cv-05195California2,193 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JOHN DOE, Case No. 16-cv-05195-JD

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

v.

COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al., Defendants.

12 Pro se plaintiff John Doe alleges a number of constitutional violations arising from an involuntary detention in a psychiatric hospital under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, Cal. Welfare & Insts. Code § 5000, et seq. (the LPS Act). Doe’s claims against the state of California and the California Attorney General were dismissed with prejudice, and his claims against Sonoma County and three Sonoma County employees were dismissed with leave to amend. See Dkt. No. 67. Doe filed a first amended complaint (FAC) asserting claims against the individual County defendants and challenging the constitutionality of the certification procedures under the LPS Act. Dkt. No. 68. The claims were dismissed with prejudice because the FAC did not add facts to plausibly show that the County defendants acted pursuant to a pattern, practice, or policy sufficient …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.