Wiley v. Department of Children and Family Services, 121515 FED9, 13-56915
|Party Name:||EDWARD HOWARD WILEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||December 15, 2015|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted December 9, 2015 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California No. 2:12-cv-04334-GHK-AJW George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding
Edward Howard Wiley appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from defendant's removal of his children from his care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Wiley's §§ 1981 and 1983 claims because Wiley failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant had a policy or custom that caused his alleged constitutional harms. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989) (under § 1983, a municipality is liable if there is a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation); Fed'n of African Am. Contractors v. City of Oakland, 96 F.3d 1204, 1215-16 (9th Cir. 1996) (under § 1981, a municipality is liable for policies and customs which cause injuries, not for the actions of its employees).
The district court properly dismissed Wiley's Title VII claim because Wiley failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was subject to discriminatory employment practices. See Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1028 (9th Cir. 2006) (elements of Title VII employment discrimination claim).
In light of our conclusion that the district court properly dismissed Wiley's federal claims for failure to state a claim, we do not address whether certain federal claims were also properly dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wiley further leave to amend his federal claims because, despite being given a prior opportunity to amend, Wiley could not cure the deficiencies in his complaint. See...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP