# Opinion

> District Court, C.D. California · November 7, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11200216

## Case

- **Full name:** Jeffrey Quimby v. Los Angeles Police Department, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** November 7, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11200216

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 WESTERN DIVISION

11

12 JEFFREY QUIMBY,
No. 2:25-cv-05349-JFW-BFM
13 Plaintiff,
v. ORDER DISMISSING FIRST
14 AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH
LOS ANGELES POLICE LEAVE TO AMEND
15 DEPARTMENT, et al.,

16 Defendants.
17
18 SUMMARY OF ORDER
19 This action involves a pro se civil rights complaint filed by Plaintiff Jeffrey
20 Quimby. He alleges that he was unlawfully detained and arrested, was booked
21 into custody, and was then released without formal charges being filed. But
22 Plaintiff provides only conclusory allegations about the “who, what, when, and
23 why” of these events.
24 In evaluating Plaintiff’s application for in forma pauperis status, the
25 Court is required to dismiss the case if it determines that the action fails to state
26 a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Applying that
27 standard, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint must be dismissed because it
28 violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a short
1 and plain statement of the grounds for relief. Such dismissal is with leave to
2 amend, as it is not clear that Plaintiff could not state a claim consistent with
3 the allegations stated in the Complaint.
4 The Court therefore dismisses the First Amended Complaint with leave
5 to amend and holds his application for in forma pauperis status in abeyance
6 pending filing of an amended complaint.
7
8 ORDER
9 A. Legal Standard
10 Where a plaintiff seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court
11 is required to review the complaint and dismiss claims that are frivolous,
12 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seek
13 monetary relief against a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
14 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000)
15 (en banc) (“It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a
16 district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a
17 claim.”). In determining whether Plaintiff has stated a claim, the Court accepts
18 as true the factual claims in the First Amended Complaint and views all
19 inferences in a light most favorable to him. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889,
20 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court does not, however, “accept as true allegations
21 that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable
22 inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.
23 2001).
24 Because Plaintiff is not represented by counsel, the Court construes the
25 First Amended Complaint liberally. Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061-62
26 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
27
28
1 B. Factual Background
2 Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on November 5, 2025. (ECF
3 14 (“FAC”).) The First Amended Complaint alleges the following facts: Plaintiff
4 was unlawfully arrested and detained without probable cause. (FAC at 1.) The
5 arrest occurred with the assistance of Beverly Hills Police Department. (FAC at
6 1.) He was booked into custody, held for six days, and then released without
7 formal charges being filed. (FAC at 1.) His vehicle was “illegally searched and
8 seized” (FAC at 2.)
9 Plaintiff names as Defendants the Los Angeles Police Department,
10 Beverly Hills Police Department, and several police officers, sergeants, and
11 investigators. (FAC at 1.) He claims those Defendants acted “jointly and under
12 color of law,” and that their acts were “retaliatory, conspiratorial, and intended
13 to deprive Plaintiff of his civil rights.” (FAC at 2.) He alleges Fourth and Fifth
14 Amendment violations under § 1983 and § 1985, Bivens, and conversion. (FAC
15 at 2.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and costs of suit. (FAC at 2.)
16 When he filed his initial Complaint, Plaintiff also applied for in forma
17 pauperis status. (ECF 3, 7.) Upon screening the Complaint, the Court dismissed
18 his Complaint with leave to amend. (ECF 13.) Plaintiff then filed this First
19 Amended Complaint. (FAC.) For much the same reasons as his previous
20 Complaint was dismissed, the Court concludes that the First Amended
21 Complaint must be dismissed.
22 C. Analysis
23 1. Rule 8
24 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires “a short and plain
25 statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” where each allegation
26 is “simple, concise, and direct.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), (d)(1). While Rule 8 does
27 not require detailed factual allegations, complaints must, at a minimum, allege
28 enough facts to provide “fair notice” of both the claim being asserted and “the
1 grounds upon which [the particular claim] rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
2 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 n.3 (2007) (internal citation and quotation marks
3 omitted). A complaint must make clear “who is being sued, for what relief, and
4 on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” McHenry v. Renne, 84
5 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2002).
6 Plaintiff fails to do so here. He provides a list of individuals, a list of causes
7 of action, and conclusory statements of what happened—for example, that he
8 was “unlawfully detained and arrested without probable cause” and that his car
9 was “illegally searched and seized.” (FAC at 1, 2.) But he never says what facts
10 led to the conclusion that he was unlawfully detained or illegally searched, or
11 how any of the named individual Defendants were involved in the incidents he
12 describes. Plaintiff appears to rest entirely on the fact that he was detained and
13 that “formal charges” were not ultimately pursued. (FAC at 1-2, 6-7.) But a
14 prosecuting authority has discretion not to charge a criminal offense for any
15 number of reasons, not solely for lack of probable cause. The mere allegation
16 that no formal charges were ultimately brought does not, therefore, state a claim
17 for unlawful detention or arrest. Because the First Amended Complaint
18 contains nothing more than conclusions, Plaintiff fails to meet Rule 8’s standard
19 for pleading a claim in federal court.
20 A violation of Rule 8 is itself a basis for dismissal. McHenry, 84 F.3d at
21 1178. Such dismissal is appropriate here; based on the current pleading, the
22 Court cannot discern whether any of Plaintiff’s causes of action state a claim on
23 which relief could be granted.
24 2. Other Problems with the Complaint
25 In amending his Complaint, Plaintiff should be aware of the following
26 additional deficiencies in his claims, two of which were flagged in the Court’s
27 previous order:
28
1 First, it does not appear Plaintiff has stated the building blocks of a claim
2 under § 1985. To state a claim under § 1985, a complaint must allege: “(1) a
3 conspiracy, (2) to deprive any person or a class of persons of the equal protection
4 of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, (3) an act by
5 one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (4) a personal
6 injury, property damage or a deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of
7 the United States.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 641 (9th Cir. 1980); see
8 also Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971) (“The language requiring
9 intent to deprive of equal protection . . . means that there must be some racial,
10 or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the
11 conspirators’ action.”). Here, the Complaint does not appear to make any
12 allegation about any racial or class-based discriminatory motive.
13 Second, it does not appear Plaintiff has made allegations that would
14 suffice to state a claim against either city or its police department. Where a
15 plaintiff seeks to impose liability under § 1983 on a municipality or one of its
16 agencies, he must identify an official policy or custom that caused his injury. Bd.
17 of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); see also Mickens v. Hous.
18 Auth. of the City of Los Angeles, No. CV 21-9798-JFW (KS), 2022 WL 18143892,
19 at *9 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2022), report and recommendation adopted Mickens v.
20 Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 2023 WL 319915 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2023)
21 (applying Monell standard to county housing authority). If there is no express
22 policy, a plaintiff must allege the existence of a “persistent and widespread”
23 custom. Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Monell v. Dep’t
24 of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)). Plaintiff has named the Los Angeles
25 Police Department and the Beverly Hills Police Department but has made no
26 allegations concerning a policy or custom of either entity.
27
28
1 Third, a Bivens claim is a method of suing federal officers and employees
2 for constitutional violations. Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 490 (2022). But
3 Plaintiff’s claims are all against local law enforcement.
4
5 CONCLUSION
6 For these reasons, Plaintiff’s application for in forma pauperis status is
7 again held in abeyance, and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed
8 with leave to amend.1
9 Plaintiff is granted until December 8, 2025, to file a Second Amended
10 Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint:
11 • Must bear the case number assigned in this case;
12 • Must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”;
13 • Must be complete in and of itself—meaning it does not require the
14 court to reference the original Complaint, the First Amended
15 Complaint, or any other pleading, attachment, or document; and
16 • Must be signed and dated.
17 If Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may request a
18 voluntary dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
19 41(a).
20
1 Magistrate Judges may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without
21
approval of the District Judge. See McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th
22 Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is advised, however, that this Court’s determination that
the allegations in the Complaint are insufficient to state a claim should not be
23 seen as dispositive of that claim. Accordingly, although this Court believes that
Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient factual matter in his pleading, accepted as
24
true, to comply with Rule 8, he is not required to omit any claim or defendant in
25 order to pursue this action. If Plaintiff decides to pursue a claim in a First
Amended Complaint that this Court has found to be insufficient, then this
26 Court, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636, ultimately may submit to
the assigned district judge a recommendation that such claim be dismissed with
27 prejudice for failure to state a claim, subject to Plaintiff’s right at that time to
file Objections with the district judge as provided in the Local Rules Governing
28
Duties of Magistrate Judges. See L.R. 72-1, 72-2.
Plaintiff is warned that if he does not do either of these things within the
2 || deadline set by the Court (or seek an extension of that deadline, if he has a good
3 || reason to do so), the Court will recommend to the assigned District Judge
4 || that the action be dismissed without further leave to amend, based on
5 || reasons set out in this Order and/or Plaintiffs failure to prosecute the
6 || case.
7
8 || ITIS SO ORDERED.
9
10 |} DATED: November 7, 2025
lI Batu)
BRIANNA FULLER MIRCHEFF
13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11200216. Public record. Not legal advice.