1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Michael Isaacs, No. 2:24-cv-01707-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 City of Susanville, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Michael Isaacs alleges officers of the City of Susanville Police Department 18 | picked him up and “body slammed him to the ground” without provocation during an arrest in 19 | late 2022. See Compl. Jf 33-44, ECF No. 1. He asserts a claim against the officers under 20 | 42 US.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment. See id. □□ 45-56. He also asserts a claim against 21 | the city under Monell v. Department of Social Services,

(1978). See Compl. 22 | §§ 116-23. He alleges the city’s police department had an unconstitutional “policy, custom, 23 | and/or practice” to use “unlawful tactics,” such as “takedown” maneuvers, “when none were 24 | warranted or lawful.” /d. § 117. The city moves to dismiss the claim against it under Federal 25 | Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the motion is fully briefed. See Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 9; 26 | Opp’n, ECF No. 16; Reply, ECF No. 20. The court took the matter under submission without 27 | holding a hearing. See Min. Order, ECF No. 24.

1 In response to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court begins by assuming the 2 | complaint’s factual allegations are true, but not its legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 3 | 556 US. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). The 4 | court then determines whether those factual allegations “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to 5 | relief’ under Rule 8. /d. at 679. This standard applies equally to Monell claims. See AE ex rel. 6 | Hernandez v. County of Tulare,

(9th Cir. 2012). 7 Isaacs’s complaint does not include allegations about the city’s alleged policy, custom or 8 | practice; he alleges only that there is a policy, custom or practice, essentially reiterating the 9 | elements of a claim under Monell. See Compl. 116-23. Generic allegations about policies and 10 | practices do not suffice. See AE ex. rel. Hernandez,

. Ifa plaintiff alleges only in 11 | general terms that a local government has an unconstitutional policy or practice, the case cannot 12 | move forward to discovery based on the plaintiffs or the court’s anticipation that discovery will 13 | reveal more information about that policy or practice. See

The complaint must stand or fall 14 | on its own allegations: “the factual allegations that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an 15 | entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the 16 | expense of discovery and continued litigation.” J/d.; see also, e.g., Dougherty v. City of Covina, 17 |

(9th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of generic Monell claim). 18 For these reasons, the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is granted with leave to amend, if 19 | possible within the confines of Rule 11. See AE ex. rel. Hernandez,

-38 20 | (reversing dismissal without leave to amend because the “allegation of plausible facts supporting 21 | sucha policy or custom could have cured the deficiency in the Monell claim”). Any amended 22 | complaint must be filed within twenty-one days. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 DATED: October 23, 2024. oUt 25 STATES DISTRICT JUDGE