DALE PHILLIPS V. SOUTH COAST PLAZA, No. 18-56070 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 25 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DALE E. PHILLIPS, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-56070 D.C. No. 8:18-cv-00812-AG-JDE MEMORANDUM* v. SOUTH COAST PLAZA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2019** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Dale E. Phillips appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of a trespass warning he received from South Coast Plaza mall. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim under * 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). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Phillips’s § 1983 action because Phillips failed to allege facts sufficient to show the violation of a constitutional right, or the presence of state action. See Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Dismissal of a § 1983 claim following a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is proper if the complaint is devoid of factual allegations that give rise to a plausible inference of either element.”); id. at 1035-36 (setting forth elements of § 1983 claim); Brewster v. Board of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 981 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth elements of procedural due process claim). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile). AFFIRMED. 2 18-56070
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.
