Patrick Vinatieri v. Aaron Mosley

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Patrick Vinatieri appeals from the district court’s order dismissing, without leave to amend, Vinatieri’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1010 (9th Cir.2011). “Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.2003).

Plaintiff failed to allege sufficiently “the existence of an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate constitutional rights” to survive the motion to dismiss his § 1983 conspiracy claims against Defendant Aaron Mosley. See Crowe v. Cnty. of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406, 440 (9th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). At most, Plaintiffs second amended complaint demonstrates that Mosley was friendly with the Vallergas family and was frequently involved in the parties’ disputes in a law enforcement capacity. The pleadings do not support a claim for a § 1983 conspiracy because they do not…