N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FR EAR STEPHEN SC HM ID; ASTR ID SC HM ID, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla nts,
v. C OUNTY OF SONOM A, by and through its Pe rm it a

nd R e sourc e M ana ge m e nt De pa rtm e nt, De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 23-15314 D.C . No. 3:21-c v-01920-TLT
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Trina Thom pson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 15, 2024 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : S.R . THOM A S, B EA, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts Fre ar Ste phe n Sc hm id a nd Astrid Sc hm id (the Sc hm i ds) a

ppe a l a distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of the ir se c tion 1983 la wsuit a ga inst 

# F IL ED
FEB 23 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.De fe nda

nt-Appe lle e the C ounty

of Sonom a . The distric t c ourt ha d fe de ra l que stion jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1331. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e A FFIRMthe distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of a ll c l a im s with pre j udic e and without le ave to a m e nd. B e c a

u se the pa rtie s a re fa m i lia r with the fa c tua l a

nd proc e dura l history of the c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re .

“ W e re vie w de novo the dism i ssa l of a c la im pursua nt to Fe de ra l R

u le of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6) . . . .” Bridge Aina Le ’a, LLC

v . Land Use

C o mm’n , 950 F .3d 610, 624 (9th C ir . 2020). “ [W ] e m ay a f firm [a R ule 12(b)(6) dism issa l] ba s e d
on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord.” J

ohnson v . Riv e rside

He althc a r

e Sy s., LP , 534 F .3d 1 1 16, 1 121 (9th C ir . 2008). “ W e re vie w for a

b use of disc re tion a distric t c o urt’ s dism issa l with pre judic e and without le a

ve to a m e nd.” Be nav ide

z v . C ounty of San Die

go , 993 F .3d 1 134, 1 141–42 (9th C ir . 2021). “ Dism issa l with pre j udic e and without le a

ve to a m e nd is not a

ppropria te unle ss it is c le a

r on de
novo re vie w tha

t the c om pla int c ould not besa

ve d by am e ndm e nt.” W

e bb v

. T rade r J oe ’s C o. , 999 F .3d 1 1 96, 1204 (9th C ir . 2021) (quoting Emine n c e C ap., LLC v . Aspe on, Inc
. , 316 F .3d 1048, 1052 (9th C ir . 2003) (pe r c uriam )). In
re vie wing que s tions of sta te la w , “ [t] he distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation . . . is
re vie we d de novo.” J

ac k son v . Gate s , 975 F .2d 648, 654–55 (9th C ir . 1992).

2The Sc hm ids do not a de quate ly ple a d a ba sis to hold the

C o unty of Sonom a lia ble unde r se c tion 1983. A “ m unic ipa lity

c a nnot be he ld lia

ble unde r [se c tion] 1983 on a re

sponde at supe rior the ory .” Mone ll v . De p’t of Soc . Se rv

s. of N e w York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Inste a d, m unic i pa litie s c an be he ld lia b le only whe n the re is “ a

dire c t c a usa l link be twe e n a

m unic ipa l polic y or c ustom and the
a lle ge d c o nstitutiona

l de priva tion.” C ity of C a nton v . Harris , 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). On a ppe a l, 1 the Sc hm ids a sk us to de c ide whe the r, unde r the Supre m e C ourt’ s de c isions in C

ity of St. Louis v . Praprotnik , 485 U.S. 112 (1988) (plura lity ), an d Pe mbaur v . C ity of C inc innati , 475 U.S. 469 (1986), the y c an hold the C ounty

of Sonom a lia

ble for a single de c i sion: issuing the Sc hm ids’ ne i ghbor, the T wo R oc k Fire De pa

rtm e nt, a pe rm it for the ir ne wbuilding a nd pa rking lot subse q ue nt to a lle g e dly

ina de quate notic e . The y c annot. Although, unde

r Praprotnik and Pe mbaur , m unic i pa litie s c an be he ld lia

ble for “ single de c ision[s] ,” the Sc hm ids m ust a l so “ e sta

b lish tha t the individua l who c om

m itte d the c onstitutiona

l tort wa s a

n offic ia l with ‘ fina l

1 On a

ppe a l, the Sc hm ids a

ba ndon the i r pra c tic e or c ustom c la i m s a nd foc u s the ir a

rgum e nts sole ly

on whe the r the C o unty of Sonom a c a n be he l d lia

ble for a s ingle de c ision of “ a fina l polic ym aking a

uthority .” Ulric h v . C

ity & C ounty of San Franc isc o , 308 F.3d 968, 984–85 (9th C ir. 2002). 3polic y -m aking a u thority ’ and tha

t the c h a l le nge d a c tion itse lf thus c onstitute d a n
a c t of offic ia l gove rnm e n ta l polic y . ” Gille tte v . De lmore , 979 F.2d 1342, 1346–47 (9th C ir. 1992). TheSc hm i ds the oriz e tha t the Dire c tor of Sonom a

C ounty ’ s Pe rm it a nd R e sourc e M ana ge m e nt De pa rtm e n t (PRM D ), Te nnis W ic k, is “ an
a uthoriz e d offic ia l polic y

m ake r for the C ounty

and [] the ultim a te / fina l polic y
m ake r for [PR M D] ” and “ im ple m e nte d, furthe re d, a

nd a l lowe d the c onduc t a

nd polic y ” that

injure d the Sc hm ids. The Sc hm ids do not pre se nt a pla usible the ory

a s to how, under state la

w, W ic k is a fina l polic y

m ake r. For the purpose s of Mone ll lia bility , it doe s not
m a tte r whe the r W ic k wa s the fina l de c ision m ake r in this pa rtic ula r c a se . R a the r, the q ue stion of whe the r W ic k holds fina l polic ym aking a uthority “ is a que stion of sta te la w.” Pe mbaur , 475 U.S. a t 483. TheSc hm ids a sse rt tha t the ir a lle g e d inte ra c tions with Wic k e s ta blish tha t W ic k holds fina l polic ym aking a u thority
. Howe ve r, the distric t c ourt prope rly c o nc lude d tha

t the Sc hm ids’ “ [s] tate m e nts of pe rsona l knowle dge ba se d on inte ra c tions not germ ane to the c urre nt a c tion do not
c onstitute pla usible fa c t

ua l a sse rtions.” Se e Ly tlev . C arl , 382 F.3d 978, 982 (9th C ir. 2004). The Sc hm ids’ a lle g a tions tha t W ic k is ve ste d

with the disc re tion to issue a
use pe rm i t a

nd wa ive a he a

ring a re insuffic ie nt, the y

m ust a lso show W ic k is
4“ re sponsible for e sta blishing final

polic y with re spe c t to the subje c t m a tte r in que stion.” Pe m baur , 475 U.S. a t 483 & n.12 (e m

pha sis a dde d). Unde r Sonom a ’ s C ounty C ode , W ic k’ s de c isions a re a ppe a la ble to two higher bodie s. Sonom a , C a l. C ounty C ode § 26-93-040(b) (“ Any inte re ste d pe rson m ay

a ppe a l any . . . pe rm it . . . [issue d] by

the pla nning dire c tor . . . to the

boa rd of z oning a djustm e nts or the pla nning c om

m ission.” ). And the Sc hm ids c onc e de tha t W ic k re ports to the C ounty B oa rd of Supe rvisors. Theam e nde d c om pla int doe s not point to a

ny sta te la w tha t ve sts W ic k with final polic ym aking a uthority ove r Sonom a

C ounty ’ s la

nd
use polic i e s (to give one e xam p le , W ic k c annot c ha

nge or re pe a l the am e nde d
c om pla i nt’ s c ite d

se c tions of theC ounty C ode tha t c re a te se t

ba c k re quire m e nts). For the s e re a sons, the Sc hm ids fa ile d to ple a d fa c ts suffic ie n t to sta te a m unic ipa l lia bility c la im
. In the a lte rna tive , the Sc hm ids a rgue tha t e ithe r W i c k’ s a c tions we re ra tifie d by the C ounty , or the C ounty de le gate d its fina l polic ym ak ing a u thority to W ic k. The am e nde d c om

pla int m ake s a

single va gue re fe re nc e to ra tific a tion in the
c onte xt of a

re late d sta

t e c ourt a c tion a

nd doe s not m e ntion de l e gation. The
am e nde d c o m

pla int doe s not “ c onta in suffic ie nt fa c tua l m a tte r, a c c e pte d a s true , to

‘ s tate a c la im to re lie f that is pla

usible on its fa c e .’ ” Ashc r oft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting B e ll Atl. C o rp. v . Tw ombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
5Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion whe n it dism isse d the
c a se without pre

j u dic e and le ave to a

m e nd. The Sc hm ids’ am e nde d c om p la int
re pe a ts the e rrors tha

t le d to the origina l c om

pla int’ s dism issa l. The am e nde d
c om pla i nt doe s not inc lude a

“ s hort a nd pla in sta

t e m e nt of the c l a im .” Fe d. R . C iv. P. 8(a )(2). Furthe r, am e ndm e nt would befutile , a s the Sc hm ids ha ve not pre se nte d
a le ga l the ory

tha t e sta blishe s m unic ipa l lia

b ility . As “ [t] he distric t

c o urt’ s disc re tion to de ny le a

ve to a m e nd is pa

rtic ula rly broa d whe re [a ] pla intiff ha s pre v iously

am e nde d the c om

pla int,” we de c line to disturb its de c ision. Asc on Props., Inc . v . Mobil Oil C o. , 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th C ir. 1989). B e c a use the Sc hm ids fa ile d to ple a d fa c ts suffic ie nt to sta te a m unic ipa l lia bility c la im , we ne e d not— an d do not— re solve any

othe r issue urge d by

the pa rtie s , inc luding them e rits of the Sc hm ids’ c onstitutiona l c la im s. AFFIRM E D.

6