Court Opinion

ID: 9408386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 17:01:16.188056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.567055
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 12 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS BRUCE ALLUMS,                            No.    22-15826

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00976-JD

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                    James Donato, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Dennis Bruce Allums appeals pro se from the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of a police report made by

Allums. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of

discretion the denial of leave to amend, but review de novo the futility of

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
amendment. Cohen v. ConAgra Brands, Inc., 16 F.4th 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2021).

We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend

because further amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that leave to amend

may be denied where amendment would be futile); see also City of Oklahoma City

v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823–24 (1985) (a single incident of unconstitutional

activity is not enough to impose Monell liability); Monteiro v. Tempe Union High

Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998) (§ 1983 equal protection claim

must allege facts that are at least susceptible to an inference of intentional

discrimination).

      We reject as unsupported by the record Allums’s contentions that he was not

provided notice of the removal of the action from state court or served with the

motion to dismiss.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-15826