Torres v. Goldstein

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL DEUSCHEL, No. 24-3129 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-03458-MMC v. MEMORANDUM* CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY; Doctor MARK GHALY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 23, 2025 ** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and HINDERAKER, District Judge.*** * 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). *** The Honorable John Charles Hinderaker, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.  Michael Deuschel appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his First Amended Complaint (FAC). The district court dismissed the FAC, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because the FAC did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse and remand. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and dismissal under Rule 8. Hebrard v. Nofziger, 90 F.4th 1000, 1006 (9th Cir. 2024) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); In re Dominguez, 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Rule 8). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal of a complaint without leave to amend. United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 848 F.3d 1161, 1172 (9th Cir. 2016). The district court did not err in dismissing the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because the FAC did not comply with Rule 8. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058–59 (9th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases affirming dismissal without leave to amend under Rule 8(a) where the complaint is unnecessarily long, repetitive, or confusing). The FAC fails to specify what actions taken by each defendant caused injury in violation of which laws. With respect to dismissal without leave to amend, “court[s] consider[] five 2 24-3129 factors in assessing the propriety of leave to amend—bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). As to the fourth factor, futility of amendment, we have explained that “[l]eave to amend is warranted if the deficiencies can be cured with additional allegations that are ‘consistent with the challenged pleading’ and that do not contradict the allegations in the original complaint.” Id. (quoting Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296–97 (9th Cir. 1990)). In dismissing the FAC without leave to amend, the district court failed to explicitly consider all the factors for dismissal without leave to amend. With respect to futility, the district court cited the standard set forth in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000)—that leave to amend should be granted unless a pleading “could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts”— but failed to identify any reasons for concluding that the FAC could not be cured with additional allegations. See DCD Programs v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (“If a district court believes the plaintiff is not able to state a claim, it should provide written findings explaining this. . . . [I]n the absence of written findings or a record which clearly indicates reasons for the district court’s denial, this court will reverse a denial of leave to amend.”). The district court’s 3 24-3129 observation that it was “unable to discern any attempt in the FAC to revise the complaint in such a way as to cure or even address the deficiencies identified in the Court’s prior screening order” does not suffice as consideration of futility becau

Case: 24-10772 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-10772 FILED June 10, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Willie Gonzales, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-93-1 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Defendant- Appellant Willie Gonzales has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzales has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-10772 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2025 No. 24-10772 record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 2

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0281n.06 Case No. 24-3444 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jun 06, 2025 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk RITA KEITH, as Administrator of the Estate of ) Arthur Keith, deceased, and Individually as the ) Natural Parent of Arthur Keith, deceased, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE Plaintiff-Appellant, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE NORTHERN v. ) DISTRICT OF OHIO ) JAMES GRIFFITHS, in his individual and ) Capacity as an Employee of the Cuyahoga ) Metropolitan Housing Authority, ) OPINION Defendant-Appellee. ) ) Before: COLE, WHITE, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges. COLE, Circuit Judge. On November 13, 2020, officer James Griffiths fatally shot Arthur Keith. Rita Keith—Keith’s mother and the administrator of his estate—sued Griffiths, asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of Keith’s Fourth Amendment rights and various state-law claims.1 Griffiths moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted his motion, finding that Griffiths was entitled to qualified and statutory immunity. Plaintiff challenges the district court’s decision. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. On November 12, 2020, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority Police Department (CMHA PD) received a phone call reporting that a black van with tinted windows allegedly 1 Rita Keith is the administrator of Arthur Keith’s estate. For clarity, we refer to Rita Keith as “plaintiff” and refer to Arthur Keith as “Keith.” No. 24-3444, Keith v. Griffiths involved with a shooting incident earlier that week was parked in a parking lot near a Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority property. Officers responded but did not find the van. The following day, CMHA PD received a second call reporting the same van in the same parking lot. Three CMHA PD officers—Griffiths, Robert Lenz, and Paul Styles—responded. Griffiths proceeded to the passenger’s side of the van, while Styles went to the driver’s side. From the officers’ perspective, the following occurred. Griffiths opened the van’s front passenger door, saw Keith in the backseat, announced it was the police, and instructed Keith: “Let me see your hands.” (Griffiths Dep., R. 69-1, PageID 3066–69.) Keith exited the vehicle on the passenger’s side, sliding the van door open and stepping out. Griffiths observed Keith holding a gun in his left hand “against his stomach, not pointing down, pointing straight across” while attempting to open the van’s door with his right hand. (Id. at PageID 3074.) He ordered Keith to drop the gun. When Keith did not comply, Griffiths drew his gun. Keith “ma[de] three to four steps” away from Griffiths and towards the sidewalk. (Id. at PageID 3083–84.) Then, Keith “turned and raised his left hand up at [Griffiths] as if he was going to shoot.” (Id. at PageID 3083.) Griffiths fired multiple shots—one of which hit Keith in his “left upper back” and exited through his “right chest.” (Armstrong Dep., R. 66-1, PageID 1136, 1140.) Keith fled on foot. Styles and Griffiths pursued for a short distance, until Keith fell to the ground. Styles was the first to reach Keith and observed a gun on the ground near Keith’s right hand. When Griffiths arrived, he also saw the gun next to Keith. Lenz arrived last and administered aid to Keith. Lenz did not see the gun on the ground, but he observed Griffiths holding it. Griffiths claimed he secured the gun because residents of the housing complex began to arrive on the scene. Once commanding officers responded, they secured the weapon in the trunk -2- No. 24-3444, Keith v. Griffiths of a police cruiser