Ghaznawi v. San Joaquin County ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABDUL GHAZNAWI, No. 2:22-cv-01988-MCE-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Through the present action, Plaintiff Abdul Ghaznawi (“Plaintiff”) seeks to recover 18 from Defendant San Joaquin County (“Defendant”) for injuries sustained when Plaintiff 19 was purportedly subjected to excessive force and deprived of food and water while 20 incarcerated in the San Joaquin County Jail. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s 21 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint to the extent it attempts to set forth Monell claims 22 against it. ECF No. 4.1 23 1 On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the 24 nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). Rule 8(a)(2) “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ in order 25 to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A 26 complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not require detailed factual allegations. However, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than 27 labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). 28 ee een een ene ne nnn nn EOI OSE NOD 1 The operative Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts implicating Defendant 2 | pursuant to Monell. The only allegations included in support of this claim are conclusory 3 | recitations of the elements of the causes of action. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to 4 | Dismiss, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED with leave to amend.? Not later than twenty (20) days 5 | following the date this Order is electronically filed, Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file 6 | an amended complaint. If no amended complaint is timely filed, the causes of action 7 | dismissed by virtue of this Order will be deemed dismissed with prejudice upon no 8 | further notice to the parties. 9 IT 1S SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: February 1, 2023 Er ~EX\E tL _ a * 42 MORRISON C. ENGLAND, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A court granting a motion to dismiss a complaint must then decide whether to grant leave to amend. Leave to amend should be “freely given” where there is no “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory 22 motive on the part of the movant, . . . undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of [the] amendment... .” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Eminence 23 Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (listing the Foman factors as those to be considered when deciding whether to grant leave to amend). Not all of these factors merit equal weight. 24 Rather, “the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party .. . carries the greatest weight.” Id. (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir. 1987)). Dismissal without leave to amend is 25 proper only if it is clear that “the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Crest Group, Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 26 1013 (9th Cir. 2005); Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Leave 27 need not be granted where the amendment of the complaint . . . constitutes an exercise in futility... .”)). 2 Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this 28 matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Local Rule 230(g).