Dennis Bruce Allums v. City of San Francisco

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS BRUCE ALLUMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-15826
D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00976-JD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Dennis Bruce Allums appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of a police report made by
Allums. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of leave to amend, but review de novo the futility of
* 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
JUL 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15826
amendment. Cohen v. ConAgra Brands, Inc., 16 F.4th 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2021).
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend
because further amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that leave to amend
may be denied where amendment would be futile); see also City of Oklahoma City
v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823–24 (1985) (a single incident of unconstitutional
activity is not enough to impose Monell liability); Monteiro v. Tempe Union High
Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998) (§ 1983 equal protection claim
must allege facts that are at least susceptible to an inference of intentional
discrimination).
We reject as unsupported by the record Allums’s contentions that he was not
provided notice of the removal of the action from state court or served with the
motion to dismiss.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --