1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No. 23-cv-1576-BAS-AHG

12 VICTORIA NGUYEN, ORDER DISMISSING THE 13 Plaintiff, AMENDED COMPLAINT, SUA SPONTE, WITH PREJUDICE 14 v. (ECF No. 4) 15 TYLER DEWEY, SAM RODRIGUEZ, D. SHORES, et al., 16 Defendants. 17

18 19 Plaintiff filed a Complaint against a long list of San Diego Police Department 20 Officers and Detectives, along with a petition to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF 21 Nos. 1–2.) The Court granted the IFP request but dismissed the Complaint sua sponte for 22 failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 3). Specifically, the Court directed Plaintiff that, if she 23 filed an Amended Complaint “she must allege facts beyond just a failure to investigate or 24 a failure to believe one set of witnesses over another.” (Id. at 7:28–8:2.) And “[i]n 25 addition, she must allege what each named defendant did that makes him or her liable for 26 the claims she alleges.” (Id. at 3:2–4.) Unfortunately, Plaintiff took this directive to mean 27 she should double the length of the Complaint with allegations about the same failure to 28 investigate detailed in the first Complaint. (ECF No. 4 (“Amended Complaint”).) 1 The allegations against each of the named Defendants are outlined in the Court’s 2 previous Order of Dismissal. (ECF No. 3) Although the Amended Complaint is lengthier, 3 the gist of the allegations remains the same. Defendant has now added factual allegations 4 against Defendant Danny, but only alleges that he was assigned to her third Internal Affairs 5 Complaint. (Am. Compl. ¶ 52.) 6 The Amended Complaint also adds four new defendants. Three of these, Officers 7 Edington, Jordon and Wadhams, are alleged to have met with Plaintiff during her various 8 Internal Affairs complaints. Similar to the other Defendants, the gist of Plaintiff’s 9 Amended Complaint seems to be that these three officers failed to pursue and arrest the 10 real wrongdoers. 11 The fourth defendant, an Officer Mendez, is alleged to have been involved in a 12 separate incident. In the Amended Complaint Plaintiff includes allegations about several 13 separate incidents involving the San Diego Police Department dating back to 2006. Most 14 of these prior incidents involved unnamed police officers. However, the Complaint does 15 name Officer Mendez, who allegedly was present in Plaintiff’s neighborhood during a 16 November 28, 2020, incident involving a “drive-through party.” As best the Court can 17 ascertain, the only allegation against Officer Mendez from this incident is that he “called 18 the Plaintiff’s cell phone and told her it was now ok for Plaintiff to leave her home” (after 19 the party disturbance ended). (Am. Compl. ¶ 31.) It is unclear why this is actionable. 20 Although pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 21 lawyers, even a pro se pleading must contain a short and plain statement showing that the 22 pleader is entitled to the relief she seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Crotts v. City of Los Angeles, 23

, *1 (9th Cir. 1993) (unpublished) (“In civil rights actions, allegations of a 24 pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, should be liberally construed.”) (citing Lopez 25 v. Dept. of Health Services,

, 882–83 (9th Cir. 1991)). Plaintiff’s allegations 26 are not easy to follow. They are certainly not a “short and plain statement.” However, the 27 crux of all the claims appears to be that police officers, responding to her home on various 28 occasions, believed other witnesses’ versions of events and not hers. She alleges the police 1 officers failed to adequately investigate and specifically failed to look at various videos of 2 the events. 3 In addition, after pointing out these errors to numerous police officers after the 4 incident, the officers then refused to arrest and prosecute the real culprits. She details many 5 attempts to get the Police Department to prosecute the individuals she believed to be the 6 real villains. She now attempts to sue each officer she contacted in these attempts. 7 As the Court detailed in its last order of dismissal, an allegation that police officers 8 failed to investigate is not sufficient to state a civil rights claim “unless there was another 9 recognized constitutional right involved.” Gomez v. Whitney,

(9th 10 Cir. 1985). “The police have no affirmative obligation to investigate a crime in a particular 11 way or to protect one citizen from another even when one citizen deprives the other of 12 liberty of property.” Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 13 1994), (citing DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,

, 195–96 14 (1989)); see also Mitchell v. McNeil,

, 378 (6th Cir. 2007) (“There is no 15 statutory or common law right, much less a constitutional right, to an investigation.”); see 16 also Ogunrinu v. City of Riverside,

, 962–63 (9th Cir. 2003) (“An 17 inadequate investigation alone does not involve the deprivation of a protected right, but 18 must involve another recognized constitutional right.” (quotations omitted)). Similarly, 19 “federal courts have generally held that the filing of a false police report alone is 20 insufficient to support a constitutional claim under § 1983.” Fisher v. Smith, No. CV 07- 21 08109 MMM (RCx),

, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2008) (listing court 22 decisions). 23 The Court previously explained to Plaintiff that she needed to allege more than 24 simply a failure to adequately investigate and a failure to prosecute her neighbors and Mr. 25 Omar Flores. Yet, despite the added length of the Amended Complaint, this is exactly 26 what she alleges again. Therefore, the Court incorporates its last ruling dismissing the 27 Complaint (ECF No. 3) and once again finds the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim. 28 I Although generally plaintiffs should be given an opportunity to amend a complaint, 2 ||the Court may deny amendment if it is clear such an amendment would be futile. See 3 ||Foman v. Davis,

(1962) (repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 4 ||amendment previously allowed by the court can be grounds for denying amendment). In 5 ||this case, the Court explained to Plaintiff what she needed to include in any Amended 6 || Complaint. Because Plaintiff still alleges a failure to investigate and prosecute, the Court 7 || concludes any additional amendments would be futile. 8 Therefore, the Court SUA SPONTE DISMISSES the Amended Complaint with 9 || prejudice. (ECF No. 4.) The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ) 13 || DATED: March 19, 2024 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A.