ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DEAN FLIPPO’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, STACY LININGER, Plaintiff, v. RONALD PFLEGER, et al., Defendants, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABSTRACT: On April 4, 2018, SUSAN VAN KEULEN, United States Magistrate Judge, issued ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DEAN FLIPPO’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, STACY LININGER, Plaintiff, v. RONALD PFLEGER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-CV-03385-SVK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Excerpts, as follows: ANALYSIS includes Plaintiff’s Arguments Relating to Standing To Pursue a Constitutional Challenge to the Penal Statute Are Misplaced and Plaintiff Has Failed To Allege Facts that Establish Standing To Pursue Injunctive Relief For Her Malicious Prosecution Claim, specifically Plaintiff’s allegations regarding her 2014 prosecution do not support standing, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding her 2015 prosecution are not sufficient to establish a likelihood of future malicious prosecution, Plaintiff’s new allegations generally describing her conduct are insufficient to establish a threat of future harm, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding future conduct are speculative and conclusory. Plaintiff’s allegations of subjective chilling are insufficient to establish future harm.
In sum, Plaintiff’s FAC is devoid of any facts that it is likely, rather than speculative or hypothetical, that she will continue to find occasions to call governmental entities to “police the police” and that such conduct would be met with malicious prosecution.
FUTILITY OF AMENDMENT As explained above, to have standing to pursue injunctive relief for her malicious prosecution claim, Plaintiff must allege more than one incident of malicious prosecution. Despite having had two opportunities to do so, Plaintiff has failed to add allegations of another incident of malicious prosecution other than the prosecution that arose from her June 2015 calls. Presumably, if there were another prosecution to plead, Plaintiff would have asserted it in her prior pleadings. Without another malicious prosecution, Plaintiff cannot plead any facts to support standing. Therefore, the Court dismisses the claim against Flippo without leave to amend. See Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint” (quoting Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989))).
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Flippo’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC is granted as to Plaintiff’s claim for malicious prosecution as set forth in her third cause of action and this claim is dismissed without leave to amend.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 4, 2018
The ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DEAN FLIPPO’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND document copy is embedded.

Lininger Order Granting Defendant Flippo's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Wihtout Leave to Amend by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STACY LININGER, Plaintiff, v. RONALD PFLEGER, et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 5:17-cv-03385-SVK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DEAN FLIPPO’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND,