ORDER

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge.

I. BACKGROUND1

Plaintiff Shana McCloud was a passenger in a car being driven by Jose Orosco (not a party). When a California Highway Patrol officer (as yet unidentified), tried to pull the car over, Orosco sped away, initiating a car chase that was apparently joined by at least one other unidentified officer. After Orosco crashed into a fence, the officers opened fire (they say Orosco tried to run them over), killing Orosco. While shooting Orosco, the officers also shot plaintiff, with one bullet piercing her lung. Plaintiff immediately surrendered, and asked for medical attention, but the officers did not immediately call for medical attention, and instead put her in handcuffs. "Several minutes later," she was transported to the hospital.

Plaintiff asserts a Section 1983 supervisory claim against John A. Farrow, the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, for violation of her Fourth Amendment and Due Process rights. Farrow is alleged to be a California state official, and is sued "individually and in his official capacity." The Complaint alleges that Farrow knew, or reasonably should have known, of repeated acts of misconduct by the officers who shot plaintiff and that he ratified and condoned their conduct. Further, as a result of Farrow's deliberate indifference to the behavior of those officers, and his failure to train them properly, the officers shot plaintiff in violation of her constitutional rights.

Defendant moves to dismiss, asserting that the Complaint makes "mere conclusory allegations" that "merely sets forth the elements of a 1983 claim without any specific reference to anything that Commissioner Farrow did or failed to do." Motion To Dismiss (ECF No. 4) at 4. Accordingly, Farrow says, "there is nothing for Commissioner Farrow to admit or deny." Id., at 4.

II. ANALYSIS

It is clear that a principal difficulty facing plaintiff at the time she filed the Complaint was that she did not know the identities of the CHP officers involved. At oral argument on the motion, the parties agreed that plaintiff now knows the names of those officers. Plaintiff is now in a position to amend the Complaint to name those officers, and possibly, to dismiss Commissioner Farrow, if such a voluntary dismissal is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. The Complaint is hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days of the date of this order;2 and

2. Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4), is DENIED as moot.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.