Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00727/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00727-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Pittsburg
Defendant
Liem Hieu Le
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIEM HIEU LE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF PITTSBURG,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-727 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is scheduled for a hearing on July 11, 2008.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution

without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS

defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. If plaintiff wishes to amend the

complaint, plaintiff must file an amended complaint no later than July 18, 2008.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed a one page complaint alleging that “[t]he discrimination, and the abuse of power,

and the negligence of employees of defendant City of Pittsburg caused the foreclosure of plaintiff’s

properties, known as 430 E. 9th St., 415 E. 9th St. and 1160 York St. in Pittsburg, California.”

Complaint ¶ 4. The complaint does not contain any other factual allegations regarding the

circumstances surrounding the foreclosures, nor does the complaint elaborate on the alleged

discrimination. The complaint does not allege a claim under any federal or state law, and seeks damages

in the amount of $2,000,000.

Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint or for a more definite statement. Defendant correctly

Case 3:08-cv-00727-SI Document 15 Filed 07/09/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 If plaintiff amends the complaint and cures the deficiencies described in this order, defendant

may renew its arguments related to plaintiff’s bankruptcy filing.

2

argues that the complaint does not identify a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. The Court advises

plaintiff that in order to file a lawsuit in federal court, there must be a basis for federal court jurisdiction,

for example if the plaintiff is alleging a claim under a federal statute. 

Similarly, the complaint must contain factual allegations supporting plaintiff’s claims; it is

insufficient simply to allege “discrimination” without any supporting facts. Although somewhat

unclear, it appears from plaintiff’s opposition that his claim(s) relate to inspectors who issued code

violations on plaintiff’s properties. The Court informs plaintiff that these facts on their own do not

appear to give rise to a claim under federal law. In addition, plaintiff is advised that a local government

may not be sued based on the acts of an employee; instead, in order to bring a claim against a public

entity such as the City of Pittsburg, plaintiff must allege that the employee acted pursuant to an official

policy or custom. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint with

leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2000). (Docket No. 4). If plaintiff

wishes to file an amended complaint, the complaint shall (1) state the basis for federal jurisdiction; (2)

specifically identify the claims that plaintiff is asserting (for example, if plaintiff is suing under a federal

or state statute, the complaint shall identify that statute); (3) state, as clearly as possible, the facts giving

rise to the complaint, including the dates upon which the events occurred; and (4) state the relief that

plaintiff seeks. Any amended complaint must be filed by July 18, 2008.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00727-SI Document 15 Filed 07/09/08 Page 2 of 2