Brye v. City of Stockton

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1] Shawn Brye, No. 2:23-cv-00343-KJM-KJIN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 City of Stockton, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Shawn Brye alleges several officers of the Stockton Police Department violently | and unconstitutionally searched and arrested him while he was doing his laundry at a public | laundry mat. See generally Am. Compl., ECF No. 25. One of the officers named as a defendant | in Brye’s amended complaint is Sergeant Matthew Thurlow. See id. § 7. According to the | amended complaint, Thurlow had warmed Brye not to return to the laundry mat the day before his | arrest, but he did so “without any valid authority.” Jd. § 15. The amended complaint does not | include other allegations against Thurlow. Nor does it explain the theory behind Brye’s claims | that Thurlow is liable, alongside the other defendants, for excessive force, false arrest, | unreasonable search or fabrication of evidence under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thurlow thus moves to | dismiss for failure to state a claim. See generally Mot., ECF No. 25. The motion is now fully | briefed. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 30; Reply, ECF No. 31. The court finds oral arguments | unnecessary and submits the motion without a hearing. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). ] A party may move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be | granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In response, the court begins by assuming the complaint’s | factual allegations are true, but not its legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 | (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The court then determines | whether those factual allegations “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief” under Rule 8. /d.

6 | 679. Brye’s allegations against Thurlow do not meet that standard. No allegations explain | Thurlow’s role in the search, arrest, or use of force at the center of the amended complaint. Brye | offers some additional information about his claims against Thurlow in his opposition brief, but | the court may not consider that information in resolving the motion to dismiss. See Schneider v. | Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998) (‘In determining the propriety of a | Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court may not look beyond the complaint to a plaintiff's moving | papers, such as a memorandum in opposition to a defendant’s motion to dismiss.” (emphasis | omitted)).

14 The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) is granted with leave to amend. Any second | amended complaint must be filed within fourteen days of the date this order is filed.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 | DATED: January 5, 2024.

18 eee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE