Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00343/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00343-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 Plaintiff Shawn Brye alleges several officers of the Stockton Police Department violently 

18 and unconstitutionally searched and arrested him while he was doing his laundry at a public 

19 laundry mat. See generally Am. Compl., ECF No. 25. One of the officers named as a defendant 

20 in Brye’s amended complaint is Sergeant Matthew Thurlow. See id. ¶ 7. According to the 

21 amended complaint, Thurlow had warned Brye not to return to the laundry mat the day before his 

22 arrest, but he did so “without any valid authority.” Id. ¶ 15. The amended complaint does not 

23 include other allegations against Thurlow. Nor does it explain the theory behind Brye’s claims 

24 that Thurlow is liable, alongside the other defendants, for excessive force, false arrest, 

25 unreasonable search or fabrication of evidence under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thurlow thus moves to 

26 dismiss for failure to state a claim. See generally Mot., ECF No. 25. The motion is now fully 

27 briefed. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 30; Reply, ECF No. 31. The court finds oral arguments 

28 unnecessary and submits the motion without a hearing. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 

Shawn Brye, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Stockton, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-00343-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

Case 2:23-cv-00343-KJM-CSK Document 32 Filed 01/08/24 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 A party may move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

2 granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In response, the court begins by assuming the complaint’s 

3 factual allegations are true, but not its legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 

4 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The court then determines 

5 whether those factual allegations “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief” under Rule 8. Id.

6 at 679. Brye’s allegations against Thurlow do not meet that standard. No allegations explain 

7 Thurlow’s role in the search, arrest, or use of force at the center of the amended complaint. Brye 

8 offers some additional information about his claims against Thurlow in his opposition brief, but 

9 the court may not consider that information in resolving the motion to dismiss. See Schneider v. 

10 Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998) (“In determining the propriety of a 

11 Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court may not look beyond the complaint to a plaintiff’s moving 

12 papers, such as a memorandum in opposition to a defendant’s motion to dismiss.” (emphasis 

13 omitted)). 

14 The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) is granted with leave to amend. Any second 

15 amended complaint must be filed within fourteen days of the date this order is filed.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

17 DATED: January 5, 2024. 

18 

Case 2:23-cv-00343-KJM-CSK Document 32 Filed 01/08/24 Page 2 of 2