Frank McDowell v. City and County of San Francis

MEMORANDUM

Frank and Deborah McDowell appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of federal and state law arising out of their employment with the City and County of San Francisco. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Filler, 627 F.3d 338 , 341 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the McDowells’ § 1983 claims against the City and County of San Francisco because the McDowells failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See AE ex rel. Hernandez v. Cnty. of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636-37 (9th Cir.2012) (pleading requirements for a Monell liability claim against a municipality); see also O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 715-16 , 107 S.Ct. 1492 , 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987) (requirements of Fourth Amendment privacy violation claim).

The district court properly dismissed the McDowells’ age discrimination claim because the McDowells failed to allege facts sufficient to state a discriminatory treatment claim or to identify a specific test, requirement, or practice that had an adverse impact on older…