ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: ECF No. 8

LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that two Sonoma County deputy sheriffs used excessive force when they responded to a call to conduct a welfare check on him and injured him, allegedly causing a concussion, a nasal deformity, three fractured teeth requiring surgery and a bone graft, facial lacerations requiring stitches, and other injuries.1 One of the two deputies — Deputy Charles Blount — moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not allege facts sufficient to state a claim against him.2 The court finds that it can decide the matter without oral argument, see Civ. L. R. 7-1(b), and denies the motion.

A complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" to give the defendant "fair notice" of what the claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 50 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, but "a plaintiff`s obligation to provide the 2017grounds' of his 2017entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a claim for relief above the speculative level . . . ." Twombly, 550 at 555 (internal citations omitted).

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations, accepted as true, "2017to state a claim to relief that it is plausible on its face.`" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 2017probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "Where a complaint pleads facts that are 2017 merely consistent with' a defendant`s liability, it 2017stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 2017entitlement to relief.`" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

The complaint meets this standard. It describes the events that precipitated the officers' arrival, the context for their engagement with the plaintiff, and his resulting injuries. And it pleads sufficiently that the officers used force that was not objectively reasonable given the circumstances that faced the officers. See Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 481 n. 12 (9th Cir. 2007).

The defendants' arguments do not change this outcome. They assert that the plaintiff alleges only that Deputy Blount grabbed the plaintiff's arm — a trivial complaint that on its face is not objectively unreasonable — and that the complaint plausibly establishes a constitutional claim only against Deputy Yount, who "took him to the ground," thereby causing the injuries.3 The court thinks that this parses the complaint too severely. Read as a whole, the complaint plausibly alleges objectively unreasonable force by both deputies, acting together. And as the plaintiff points out, a plaintiff does not have to plead evidence not ascertainable except through discovery.4

The court appreciates the defendants' argument but thinks it better to raise it in a summary-judgment motion. This disposes of ECF No. 8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.