Paul Pitsnogle v. City of Reno

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Paul Pitsnogle appeals the dismissal of his Monell and abuse of process claims against the City of Reno (“City”) and Washoe County (“County”). Because the parties are well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case, we repeat them only as necessary to illuminate this disposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Pitsnogle did not plead facts sufficient to show that either the City or County had a “policy” which caused his alleged harm. With respect to the City, Pitsnogle argues that the chief of police promulgated city policy when he “made the decision to conduct an inadequate investigation.” Contrary to his argument, however, Pit-snogle alleged that the officers who investigated Pitsnogle ignored Reno Police Department’s established policies and hid the flaws in their investigation from the chief of police. Furthermore, the investigation was turned over to the City of Sparks Police Department. In short, Pitsnogle has not alleged that any of the Reno officers’ actions were taken pursuant to the chief of police’s “decision to adopt a particular course of action.” Cf. Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 538 F.3d 1010,…