Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. San Diego District Attorney

United States District Court, S.D. California

February 26, 2018

GAVIN B. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
v.
SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY; MR. LEONARD TRINH; SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN DOES, Defendants.

          ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS; (2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; (3) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR JOINDER; AND (4) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR ACCESS TO COURTS (ECF NOS. 34, 44, 59, 63)

          HON. JANIS L. SAMMARTINO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Presently before the Court are Defendants Bonnie Dumanis, Leonard Trinh, and David T. Grapilon's Motion to Dismiss Second (Labelled “First”) Amended Complaint, (“MTD, ” ECF No. 44). Also before the Court are Plaintiff Gavin B. Davis's Response in Opposition, (“Opp'n, ” ECF No. 48), and Defendants' Reply in Support of, (“Reply, ” ECF No. 50), their Motion to Dismiss. The Court vacated the hearing on the motion and took it under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). (ECF No. 51.)

         Also before the Court are various ex parte motions filed by Plaintiff including a Motion for Protective Order, (ECF No. 34), a Motion for Joinder, (ECF No. 59), and a Motion for Access to the Courts, (ECF No. 63). The Court will address Plaintiff's Motions at the conclusion of the Motion to Dismiss. After considering the parties' arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, (ECF No. 44).

         LEGAL STANDARD

         All complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)). “[D]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is context-specific, requiring the reviewing court to draw on its experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663-64 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

         “When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000).

         “While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.” Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Courts cannot accept legal conclusions set forth in a complaint if the plaintiff has not supported her contentions with facts. Id. (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). Additionally, while the court “ha[s] an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt, ” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)), it may not “supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

         ANALYSIS

         I. Motion to Dismiss

         Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). (See generally MTD.)

         A. Procedural History

         On March 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a meandering forty-four-page Complaint that discusses various wrongs Plaintiff alleges he has suffered. (See ECF No. 1.) Defendants San Diego District Attorney and Leonard Trinh filed a motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 5), as did Defendant City of San Diego (erroneously sued as San Diego Police Department), (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 9.) The Court denied the preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 19), which Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, (ECF No. 22). In the interim, this Court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint because Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of Rule 8. Instead of a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), Plaintiff filed a complaint that described events that were “disjointed and difficult to comprehend.” (“Prior Order, ” ECF No. 31, at 3.) The Court found that Plaintiff failed to give Defendants fair notice of the claims against them. (Id.)

         Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 32), and then filed a Second Amended Complaint, (Second Am. Compl., (“SAC”), ECF No. 37), but labeled the latter as his “First Amended Complaint.” The Court will refer to his current operative complaint as Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint no longer alleges the City of San Diego as a defendant, (id. ¶ 7), and instead names several San Diego district attorneys (collectively “Defendants”). Defendants filed the present Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff also filed various motions, which the Court discusses below. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court's Order denying preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF No. 64.) This brings the Court to the merits of Plaintiff's Seconded Amended Complaint.

         B. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.