Edwin J. Cohens v. Alameda County Sheriff Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN J. COHENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-16830
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00303-JST
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Edwin J. Cohens appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 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. Pliler, 627
FILED
JUL 31 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cohen’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim
because Cohen failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See id.
at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must
present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also
AE ex rel. Hernandez v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636-37 (9th Cir. 2012)
(discussing pleading requirements for a Monell liability claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend
after providing notice of deficiencies and one opportunity to amend and concluding
that further amendment would be futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130
(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave
to amend should be given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured
by amendment).
AFFIRMED.
13-16830 2

-- 2 of 2 --