Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01081/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01081-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 09cv1081 BTM (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARYL LOWRY,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09cv1081 BTM (WVG)

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

v.

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT, HERITAGE

SECURITY, and DOES 1–3

Defendant.

Defendant Metropolitan Transit System (“MTS”) (erroneously sued as Metropolitan

Transit) has moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 31]. Defendant

Heritage Security Services (erroneously sued as Heritage Security) has also filed a motion

to dismiss [Doc. 32]. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS both motions.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights and several state-law causes of

action based on an alleged fight he had with security officers on a trolley near the Old Town

Transit Center in San Diego. The Court more thoroughly discussed the facts of this case

in an order dated March 8, 2010 [Doc. 17]. That order dismissed several of Plaintiff’s claims

with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which the Court dismissed

in part, and now Plaintiff has filed a Second Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The Court

resolves the issues raised in the parties’ motions as set forth below. 

Case 3:09-cv-01081-BTM-WVG Document 36 Filed 08/31/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 Plaintiff also mentions the Eighth Amendment, but alleges no facts supporting a

claim under this amendment.

2 09cv1081 BTM (WVG)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), the plaintiff is required only to set forth

a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and

“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). When reviewing a motion to

dismiss, the allegations of material fact in plaintiff’s complaint are taken as true and

construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v.

Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). But only factual allegations must be

accepted as true—not legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id. Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the

factual allegations ”must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Furthermore, “only a complaint that states a plausible claim for

relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.

III. DISCUSSION

1. Constitutional Claims

As discussed in the Court’s March 8, 2010 order, Plaintiff appears to allege a claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 But Defendants MTS and Heritage can only be liable under § 1983

if the violation was the result of either a policy or a failure to train their employees. See Bd.

of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489

U.S. 378, 388 (1989). Plaintiff alleges neither.

The closest Plaintiff comes to alleging a policy or failure to train is this: “Defendants

have intentionally or unintentionally conspired with each other, together as individuals, or

collectively, to past, present and into the future to violate the civil right of the Plaintiff, under

color of law by their past, present and future unguided by any known policies with regard to

Case 3:09-cv-01081-BTM-WVG Document 36 Filed 08/31/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 09cv1081 BTM (WVG)

the enforcement of the peace and/or law enforcement.” Although this sentence mentions

policies, it does not allege how those policies led to his injuries, or that MTS failed to train its

employees. He also alleges that the “trolley security is made up people that don’t know what

there doing.” This allegation is too vague and fails to support his constitutional claims.

The constitutional claims against MTS and Heritage are DISMISSED without

prejudice. The Court has already given Plaintiff an opportunity to plead a violative policy or

failure to train, but Plaintiff has not done so. The Court therefore denies leave to amend.

Plaintiff also alleges a “de facto government civil conspiracy to violate civil rights.”

This claim is unintelligible, devoid of facts, and the Court DISMISSES it without prejudice.

The Court has already dismissed this claim on the same grounds, so the Court denies leave

to amend this claim as well.

There are no remaining federal claims in this case, and the Court therefore declines

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

The Court warned Plaintiff that this was his last chance to plead a constitutional claim, but

Plaintiff failed to do so. Plaintiff has named Does 1–3 as Defendants, but Plaintiff has not

served them within 120 days of filing his complaint and the Court therefore DISMISSES the

Doe Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Chadwick v. San Diego Police Dep’t, No.

09cv946, 2010 WL 883839, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2010) (dismissing Doe defendant for

failure to serve under Rule 4(m)). The Court therefore DISMISSES without prejudice the

Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01081-BTM-WVG Document 36 Filed 08/31/10 Page 3 of 3