Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01707/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01707-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 Michael Isaacs alleges officers of the City of Susanville Police Department 

18 picked him up and “body slammed him to the ground” without provocation during an arrest in 

19 late 2022. See Compl. ¶¶ 33–44, ECF No. 1. He asserts a claim against the officers under 

20 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment. See id. ¶¶ 45–56. He also asserts a claim against 

21 the city under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). See Compl. 

22 ¶¶ 116–23. He alleges the city’s police department had an unconstitutional “policy, custom, 

23 and/or practice” to use “unlawful tactics,” such as “takedown” maneuvers, “when none were 

24 warranted or lawful.” Id. ¶ 117. The city moves to dismiss the claim against it under Federal 

25 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the motion is fully briefed. See Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 9; 

26 Opp’n, ECF No. 16; Reply, ECF No. 20. The court took the matter under submission without 

27 holding a hearing. See Min. Order, ECF No. 24. 

Michael Isaacs, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Susanville, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-01707-KJM-DMC 

ORDER 

Case 2:24-cv-01707-KJM-DMC Document 25 Filed 10/23/24 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

In response to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court begins by assuming the 

complaint’s factual allegations are true, but not its legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The 

court then determines whether those factual allegations “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to 

relief” under Rule 8. Id. at 679. This standard applies equally to Monell claims. See AE ex rel. 

Hernandez v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Isaacs’s complaint does not include allegations about the city’s alleged policy, custom or

practice; he alleges only that there is a policy, custom or practice, essentially reiterating the

elements of a claim under Monell. See Compl. ¶¶ 116–23. Generic allegations about policies and 

practices do not suffice. See AE ex. rel. Hernandez, 666 F.3d at 637. If a plaintiff alleges only in 

general terms that a local government has an unconstitutional policy or practice, the case cannot 

move forward to discovery based on the plaintiff’s or the court’s anticipation that discovery will 

reveal more information about that policy or practice. See id. The complaint must stand or fall 

on its own allegations: “the factual allegations that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an 

entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the 

expense of discovery and continued litigation.” Id.; see also, e.g., Dougherty v. City of Covina, 

654 F.3d 892, 900–01 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of generic Monell claim). 

For these reasons, the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is granted with leave to amend, if 

possible within the confines of Rule 11. See AE ex. rel. Hernandez, 666 F.3d at 637–38 

(reversing dismissal without leave to amend because the “allegation of plausible facts supporting 

such a policy or custom could have cured the deficiency in the Monell claim”). Any amended 

22 complaint must be filed within twenty-one days. 

23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

24 DATED: October 23, 2024. 

25 

Case 2:24-cv-01707-KJM-DMC Document 25 Filed 10/23/24 Page 2 of 2