DONALD HENRY V. SFPD, No. 14-17362 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 25 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DONALD R. HENRY, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-17362 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01624-JSC v. MEMORANDUM* SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jacqueline Scott Corley, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted August 16, 2016*** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Donald R. Henry appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false arrest. We review de novo * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Henry’s action because Henry failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was arrested without probable cause. See id. at 918 (“To maintain an action for false arrest, [plaintiff] must plead facts that would show [defendant ordered] or otherwise procured the arrests and the arrests were without probable cause”). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Henry further leave to amend. See Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend need not be granted where amendment would be futile; “[t]he district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint”). AFFIRMED. 2 14-17362

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.