Andrew Kwasi Donkor v. People of the State of California, in their official capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREW KWASI DONKOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, in their official capacity; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-55829
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-09229-GW-DTB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Andrew Kwasi Donkor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in
connection with the alleged seizure of his automobile and other personal property.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-55829
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim. Barren
v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Donkor’s action against defendant
Manhattan Beach Tow because Donkor failed to allege facts in his second
amended complaint sufficient to show that Manhattan Beach Tow’s actions
constituted state action. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(explaining that “[a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions” or “naked
assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” fails to satisfy federal pleading
standards (citations, internal quotation marks, and alteration omitted)); DeGrassi v.
City of Glendora, 207 F.3d 636, 647 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[B]are allegation[s]” of
“joint action will not overcome a motion to dismiss; the plaintiff must allege facts
tending to show that [defendants] acted under color of state law or authority.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Donkor’s action against the remaining
defendants because Donkor failed to allege facts in his second amended complaint
sufficient to show that Donkor’s constitutional rights were violated pursuant to a
policy, practice, or custom of a governmental defendant. See Monell v. Dep’t of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-55829
Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978) (setting forth requirements for municipal
liability); see also Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1075 (9th Cir.
2016) (en banc) (municipal liability requires “direct causal link between a
municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --