Case ID: f-appx_227/html/0647-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Linda MENGISTU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 05-55751.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 9, 2007.
    
    Filed April 12, 2007.
    Joseph M. Ribakoff, Esq., Law Office of Joseph Ribakoff, Long Beach, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Amy Jo Field, Esq., Rockard J. Delgadillo, Esq., Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for DefendantAppellee.
    Before: PREGERSONand FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges, and SILER, Senior Judge.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Linda Mengistu appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee the City of Los Angeles. Mengistu also appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for leave to amend the pleadings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment because the City is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for any injury suffered by Mengistu. Even assuming that she suffered a violation of her constitutional rights, Mengistu has not shown that any city policy or custom was the “moving force” behind her injury. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). The city policy addressing refusal of care by incompetent patients, referred to by the parties as “Reference No. 834,” incorporates California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150, including its probable cause requirement. Mengistu’s other challenges to the policy’s constitutionality are also meritless.

Finally, we affirm the district court’s denial of Mengistu’s motion for leave to amend the complaint.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.