Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00654/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00654-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

17-CV-654 JLS (BGS)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAVIN B. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY; 

MR. LEONARD TRINH; SAN DIEGO 

POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN DOES,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-CV-654 JLS (BGS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS

(ECF Nos. 5, 6)

Presently before the Court are Defendants San Diego District Attorney and Leonard 

Trinh’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Allege a Short, Plain Statement and 

for Failure to State a Claim, (“MTD 1,” ECF No. 5), and Defendant City of San Diego’s 

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, (“MTD 2,” ECF No. 6). Also before the Court 

are Plaintiff Gavin B. Davis’s response in opposition to one of these motions, (“MTD 2 

Opp’n,” ECF No. 7), and Defendant City of San Diego’s reply in support of its motion, 

(“MTD 2 Reply,” ECF No. 20). The Court vacated the hearing on the motions and took 

them under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). (ECF 

No. 21.) After considering the parties’ arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 6).

Case 3:17-cv-00654-JLS-BGS Document 31 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-CV-654 JLS (BGS)

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

LEGAL STANDARD

All complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)). “[D]etermining whether a complaint 

states a plausible claim is context-specific, requiring the reviewing court to draw on its 

experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663–64 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

556). 

“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court 

must accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000).

“While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.” Hoagland 

v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) 

(citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Courts cannot accept legal conclusions set forth in a 

complaint if the plaintiff has not supported her contentions with facts. Id. (citing Iqbal, 556

U.S. at 679). Additionally, while the court “ha[s] an obligation where the petitioner is pro 

se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the 

petitioner the benefit of any doubt,” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 

2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)), it may not “supply 

essential elements of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. 

of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00654-JLS-BGS Document 31 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-CV-654 JLS (BGS)

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

ANALYSIS

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to meet the 

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). (See generally MTD 1, MTD 2.) The 

Court agrees.

On March 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a meandering forty-four-page Complaint that 

discusses various wrongs Plaintiff believes he has suffered. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff generally describes two “incidents” which purportedly give rise to claims for relief 

against Defendants. In the first, Plaintiff appears to describe a restraining order that was 

enforced against him by his ex-wife and the San Diego Police Department. (See id. at 10–

15.1) In the second, Plaintiff discusses his arrest inside superior court for what appears to 

be contempt of court. (See id. at 15–20.) Then Plaintiff describes events under the title of 

“other attempts at illegal pre-trial detention and custody of the plaintiff,” (id. at 21–39), 

which are even more disjointed and difficult to comprehend than his previous two 

“incidents.” After assessing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court cannot discern the outlines of 

any particular claim for relief and thus agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has failed to 

give them fair notice of the claims against them. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. See, e.g., Davis v. Unruh, No. 16-56306, 2017 WL 

695206, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017) (affirming the court’s dismissal of this Plaintiff’s

complaint for failure to satisfy Rule 8); Cafasso, United States ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics 

C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058–59 (9th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases upholding Rule 8 

dismissals where pleadings were “verbose,” “confusing,” “distracting, ambiguous, and 

unintelligible,” “highly repetitious,” and comprised of “incomprehensible rambling”);

United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003)

(“Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings straightforward, so that judges and 

adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.”).

 

1 Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each 

page.

Case 3:17-cv-00654-JLS-BGS Document 31 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-CV-654 JLS (BGS)

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

The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his Complaint to address the 

deficiencies set forth above and as outlined by Defendants in their motions. In the amended 

complaint, Plaintiff must succinctly specify who did what, when the events occurred, and 

how Plaintiff was harmed by the alleged conduct.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss 

(ECF Nos. 5, 6). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff SHALL FILE an amended complaint, if any, 

on or before thirty (30) days of the date on which this order is electronically docketed. 

Failure to file an amended complaint within this time period may result in this case being 

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00654-JLS-BGS Document 31 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4