ANDREW DONKOR V. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIF., No. 16-55829 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 24 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDREW KWASI DONKOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-55829 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-09229-GW-DTB MEMORANDUM* PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, in their official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees. 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). 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 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 16-55829

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.