1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION

11

12 JEFFREY QUIMBY, No. 2:25-cv-05349-JFW-BFM 13 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 14 AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH

LOS ANGELES POLICE LEAVE TO AMEND

15 DEPARTMENT, et al.,

16 Defendants. 17 18 SUMMARY OF ORDER 19 This action involves a pro se civil rights complaint filed by Plaintiff Jeffrey 20 Quimby. He alleges that he was unlawfully detained and arrested, was booked 21 into custody, and was then released without formal charges being filed. But 22 Plaintiff provides only conclusory allegations about the “who, what, when, and 23 why” of these events. 24 In evaluating Plaintiff’s application for in forma pauperis status, the 25 Court is required to dismiss the case if it determines that the action fails to state 26 a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Applying that 27 standard, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint must be dismissed because it 28 violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a short 1 and plain statement of the grounds for relief. Such dismissal is with leave to 2 amend, as it is not clear that Plaintiff could not state a claim consistent with 3 the allegations stated in the Complaint. 4 The Court therefore dismisses the First Amended Complaint with leave 5 to amend and holds his application for in forma pauperis status in abeyance 6 pending filing of an amended complaint. 7 8 ORDER 9 A. Legal Standard 10 Where a plaintiff seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court 11 is required to review the complaint and dismiss claims that are frivolous, 12 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seek 13 monetary relief against a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 14 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) 15 (en banc) (“It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a 16 district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a 17 claim.”). In determining whether Plaintiff has stated a claim, the Court accepts 18 as true the factual claims in the First Amended Complaint and views all 19 inferences in a light most favorable to him. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 20 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court does not, however, “accept as true allegations 21 that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable 22 inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 23 2001). 24 Because Plaintiff is not represented by counsel, the Court construes the 25 First Amended Complaint liberally. Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061-62 26 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 27 28 1 B. Factual Background 2 Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on November 5, 2025. (ECF 3 14 (“FAC”).) The First Amended Complaint alleges the following facts: Plaintiff 4 was unlawfully arrested and detained without probable cause. (FAC at 1.) The 5 arrest occurred with the assistance of Beverly Hills Police Department. (FAC at 6 1.) He was booked into custody, held for six days, and then released without 7 formal charges being filed. (FAC at 1.) His vehicle was “illegally searched and 8 seized” (FAC at 2.) 9 Plaintiff names as Defendants the Los Angeles Police Department, 10 Beverly Hills Police Department, and several police officers, sergeants, and 11 investigators. (FAC at 1.) He claims those Defendants acted “jointly and under 12 color of law,” and that their acts were “retaliatory, conspiratorial, and intended 13 to deprive Plaintiff of his civil rights.” (FAC at 2.) He alleges Fourth and Fifth 14 Amendment violations under § 1983 and § 1985, Bivens, and conversion. (FAC 15 at 2.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and costs of suit. (FAC at 2.) 16 When he filed his initial Complaint, Plaintiff also applied for in forma 17 pauperis status. (ECF 3, 7.) Upon screening the Complaint, the Court dismissed 18 his Complaint with leave to amend. (ECF 13.) Plaintiff then filed this First 19 Amended Complaint. (FAC.) For much the same reasons as his previous 20 Complaint was dismissed, the Court concludes that the First Amended 21 Complaint must be dismissed. 22 C. Analysis 23 1. Rule 8 24 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires “a short and plain 25 statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” where each allegation 26 is “simple, concise, and direct.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), (d)(1). While Rule 8 does 27 not require detailed factual allegations, complaints must, at a minimum, allege 28 enough facts to provide “fair notice” of both the claim being asserted and “the 1 grounds upon which [the particular claim] rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 2 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 n.3 (2007) (internal citation and quotation marks 3 omitted). A complaint must make clear “who is being sued, for what relief, and 4 on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 5 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2002). 6 Plaintiff fails to do so here. He provides a list of individuals, a list of causes 7 of action, and conclusory statements of what happened—for example, that he 8 was “unlawfully detained and arrested without probable cause” and that his car 9 was “illegally searched and seized.” (FAC at 1, 2.) But he never says what facts 10 led to the conclusion that he was unlawfully detained or illegally searched, or 11 how any of the named individual Defendants were involved in the incidents he 12 describes. Plaintiff appears to rest entirely on the fact that he was detained and 13 that “formal charges” were not ultimately pursued. (FAC at 1-2, 6-7.) But a 14 prosecuting authority has discretion not to charge a criminal offense for any 15 number of reasons, not solely for lack of probable cause. The mere allegation 16 that no formal charges were ultimately brought does not, therefore, state a claim 17 for unlawful detention or arrest. Because the First Amended Complaint 18 contains nothing more than conclusions, Plaintiff fails to meet Rule 8’s standard 19 for pleading a claim in federal court. 20 A violation of Rule 8 is itself a basis for dismissal. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 21 1178. Such dismissal is appropriate here; based on the current pleading, the 22 Court cannot discern whether any of Plaintiff’s causes of action state a claim on 23 which relief could be granted. 24 2. Other Problems with the Complaint 25 In amending his Complaint, Plaintiff should be aware of the following 26 additional deficiencies in his claims, two of which were flagged in the Court’s 27 previous order: 28 1 First, it does not appear Plaintiff has stated the building blocks of a claim 2 under § 1985. To state a claim under § 1985, a complaint must allege: “(1) a 3 conspiracy, (2) to deprive any person or a class of persons of the equal protection 4 of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, (3) an act by 5 one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (4) a personal 6 injury, property damage or a deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of 7 the United States.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 641 (9th Cir. 1980); see 8 also Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971) (“The language requiring 9 intent to deprive of equal protection . . . means that there must be some racial, 10 or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the 11 conspirators’ action.”). Here, the Complaint does not appear to make any 12 allegation about any racial or class-based discriminatory motive. 13 Second, it does not appear Plaintiff has made allegations that would 14 suffice to state a claim against either city or its police department. Where a 15 plaintiff seeks to impose liability under § 1983 on a municipality or one of its 16 agencies, he must identify an official policy or custom that caused his injury. Bd. 17 of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); see also Mickens v. Hous. 18 Auth. of the City of Los Angeles, No. CV 21-9798-JFW (KS), 2022 WL 18143892, 19 at *9 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2022), report and recommendation adopted Mickens v. 20 Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 2023 WL 319915 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2023) 21 (applying Monell standard to county housing authority). If there is no express 22 policy, a plaintiff must allege the existence of a “persistent and widespread” 23 custom. Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Monell v. Dep’t 24 of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)). Plaintiff has named the Los Angeles 25 Police Department and the Beverly Hills Police Department but has made no 26 allegations concerning a policy or custom of either entity. 27 28 1 Third, a Bivens claim is a method of suing federal officers and employees 2 for constitutional violations. Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 490 (2022). But 3 Plaintiff’s claims are all against local law enforcement. 4 5 CONCLUSION 6 For these reasons, Plaintiff’s application for in forma pauperis status is 7 again held in abeyance, and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed 8 with leave to amend.1 9 Plaintiff is granted until December 8, 2025, to file a Second Amended 10 Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint: 11 • Must bear the case number assigned in this case; 12 • Must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; 13 • Must be complete in and of itself—meaning it does not require the 14 court to reference the original Complaint, the First Amended 15 Complaint, or any other pleading, attachment, or document; and 16 • Must be signed and dated. 17 If Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may request a 18 voluntary dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 41(a). 20 1 Magistrate Judges may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without 21 approval of the District Judge. See McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th 22 Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is advised, however, that this Court’s determination that the allegations in the Complaint are insufficient to state a claim should not be 23 seen as dispositive of that claim. Accordingly, although this Court believes that Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient factual matter in his pleading, accepted as 24 true, to comply with Rule 8, he is not required to omit any claim or defendant in 25 order to pursue this action. If Plaintiff decides to pursue a claim in a First Amended Complaint that this Court has found to be insufficient, then this 26 Court, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636, ultimately may submit to the assigned district judge a recommendation that such claim be dismissed with 27 prejudice for failure to state a claim, subject to Plaintiff’s right at that time to file Objections with the district judge as provided in the Local Rules Governing 28 Duties of Magistrate Judges. See L.R. 72-1, 72-2. Plaintiff is warned that if he does not do either of these things within the 2 || deadline set by the Court (or seek an extension of that deadline, if he has a good 3 || reason to do so), the Court will recommend to the assigned District Judge 4 || that the action be dismissed without further leave to amend, based on 5 || reasons set out in this Order and/or Plaintiffs failure to prosecute the 6 || case. 7 8 || ITIS SO ORDERED. 9 10 |} DATED: November 7, 2025 lI Batu)

BRIANNA FULLER MIRCHEFF

13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28