1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 22-cv-01561-DMS KATHRYN M. TITI,

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL 13 CITY OF SAN DIEGO MUNICIPALITY,

14 Defendant. 15 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal (“Pl.’s Mot.”). 17 (ECF No. 14.) On May 11, 2023, the Court determined that it lacked subject matter 18 jurisdiction over this claim and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this claim should not 19 be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 11.) On May 31, 2023, the Court dismissed 20 the Action sua sponte without prejudice so that Plaintiff may bring her claim in a court of 21 competent jurisdiction. (ECF No. 13.) In the present motion, Plaintiff seeks relief from 22 the Court’s Order dated May 31, 2023, and asserts that the Court has federal question 23 jurisdiction to hear her claims because Plaintiff’s claims arise under

and 24 the standard set by Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y.,

(1978). The 25 Court treats the motion as a motion for relief from a judgment or order brought under 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The Court disagrees and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 27 Plaintiff’s complaint never mentions

or Monell and leave to amend 28 would be futile because Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege constitutional violation. To 1 |}establish municipal liability under Monell, Plaintiff must prove that (1) she was deprived 2 ||of a constitutional right; (2) the municipality had a policy; (3) the policy amounted to 3 || deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional right; and (4) the policy was the moving 4 || force behind the constitutional violation. Dougherty v. City of Covina,

, 900 5 || (9th Cir. 2011). “Monell claims . . . require a plaintiff to show an underlying constitutional 6 || violation.” Lockett v. County of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 2020). Plaintiff 7 specifies no constitutional violation in her Motion. Plaintiff explains that the City’s 8 ||negligence “clearly demonstrates ... unconstitutional action,” (PI.’s Mot. at 6) but Plaintiff 9 || says nothing further about what the constitutional violation actually is. “Mere negligence 10 |/in training or supervision . . . does not give rise to a Monell claim.” Dougherty,

(9th Cir. 2011). 12 The Court concludes that Plaintiff cannot plausibly raise a Section 1983 Monell 13 ||/claim because she cannot plausibly allege a constitutional violation. The injury Plaintiff 14 |/alleges sounds in negligence, and the Court reaffirms that it lacks subject matter 15 |/jurisdiction over such a claim for the reasons explained in its Order dated May 11, 2023 16 ||(ECF No. 11). Therefore, the Court DENIES the present Motion and denies leave for 17 || Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. 18 The proper forum for this negligence claim is San Diego County Superior Court. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: July 11, 2023 gf J 22 . 23 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 24 25 26 27 28