1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DENNIS BRUCE ALLUMS, Case No. 22-cv-00976-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISMSISAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 8 10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 11 Defendant.

12

13 Pro se plaintiff Dennis Allums has alleged one claim under

against 14 defendant City and County of San Francisco relating to an incident in January 2020. Dkt. No. 1-1 15 at ECF p. 5. Allums says he tried to report a concern about “endangerment of a black child” to an 16 SFPD officer, and that the officer was dismissive and declined to open an investigation.

at 17 ECF pp. 5-6. Allums believes this was motivated by discrimination against him as an African 18 American.

at ECF p. 6. 19 San Francisco has asked to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 8. Dismissal is granted. 21 As a pro se plaintiff, Allums gets a liberal construction of his complaint and the benefit of 22 any doubts, but he still must satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 and state facts sufficient to allege a 23 plausible claim. Nguyen Gardner v. Chevron Capital Corp., No. 15-cv-01514-JD,

12976114, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2015). The complaint alleges a single incident of 25 unconstitutional conduct, which is not enough to plausibly state a Section 1983 claim against San 26 Francisco. See Escobar-Lopez v. City of Daly City,

, 1127-29 (N.D. Cal. 27 2021). In addition, Allums attached an SFPD incident report to the complaint, which the Court 1 may consider in the Rule 12(b)(6) context. See Washington v. Moore, Case No. 3:18-CV-06728- 2 JD,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2020). The report states that Allums told the 3 officer that he had seen “‘darkness and then light’ coming from the child” who was the subject of 4 || Allum’s concerns, and that the child was “flirtatious” with him. Dkt. No. 1-1 at ECF p. 12. This 5 record further undermines the plausibility of the Section 1983 claim. 6 Although it is the Court’s practice to liberally grant leave to amend, especially in pro se 7 cases, amendment here is not warranted. Allums filed the complaint in February 2022, two years 8 after the January 2020 incident, and was not able to include any facts that might plausibly allege a 9 || pattern, policy, or practice for Section 1983 purposes. The SFPD incident report provides 10 || additional grounds for concluding that amendment would be futile. Consequently, the complaint 11 is dismissed with prejudice. See Gordon v. City of Oakland,

(9th Cir. 2010) 12 |] (citation omitted). The case is ordered closed, and no further filings will be accepted without prior 13 approval by the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: May 26, 2022 2 16

My JAMES ATO Z 18 United fates District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28