Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01694/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01694-2/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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dino Montelongo, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Phoenix, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1694-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a

claim of malicious prosecution (doc. 36), and defendants’ response (doc. 44). Plaintiff did

not file a reply in support of his motion.

Under Rule 15(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., a party may amend a complaint after a

responsive pleading has been served, “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the

court’s leave.” We must grant leave to amend “when justice so requires.” Id. A motion for

leave to amend may be denied if it appears to be futile or legally insufficient. Miller v.

Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). We apply the same standard for

determining the legal sufficiency of a proposed amendment that we apply in deciding a Rule

12(b)(6) motion. Id. 

In order to state a § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must allege that

state or local officials “improperly exerted pressure on the prosecutor, knowingly provided

misinformation to him, concealed exculpatory evidence, or otherwise engaged in wrongful

Case 2:08-cv-01694-FJM Document 46 Filed 05/04/09 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

or bad faith conduct that was actively instrumental in causing the initiation of legal

proceedings.” Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation

omitted).

Plaintiff now seeks to amend his complaint by adding a claim for “Violation of 42

U.S.C. § 1983 – Malicious Prosecution and Wrongful Use of the Judicial Process.” At the

same time, however, he deletes from his amended complaint all of the factual allegations that

would support that claim. See Proposed Amended Complaint ¶ 34 (omitted). The only

remaining allegation that would even arguably support a claim for malicious prosecution is

that “the Defendants, under color of state law, yet without probable cause and due process,

unlawfully conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his rights and of his liberty.” Proposed Amended

Complaint ¶ 13. This is wholly inadequate. “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the

‘ground’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citation omitted). The

proposed amended complaint is legally insufficient to state a claim for malicious prosecution

and therefore the amendment is denied. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion to amend (doc. 36). 

DATED this 1st day of May, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01694-FJM Document 46 Filed 05/04/09 Page 2 of 2