DAVID B. TURNER, Jr. v. City of San Diego Police Department;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID B. TURNER, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO POLICE
DEPARTMENT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-55964
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-02124-DMS-
JMA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
David B. Turner, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in
connection with his arrest and detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
JUL 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We may affirm on any
basis supported by the record. Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900
(9th Cir. 2011). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The district court dismissed Turner’s action as duplicative of Turner’s action
in Turner v. San Diego Central Jail, No. 3:13-cv-0113-WQH-BGS (“Turner I”).
However, Turner’s claims based on events occurring on March 20, 2013 did not
involve the same claims or the same parties as Turner I. See Adams v. Cal. Dep’t
of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of
review and explaining that in determining whether a later-filed action is
duplicative, this court examines “whether the causes of action and relief sought, as
well as the parties or privities to the action, are the same”), abrogated on other
grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). We reverse the district
court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings as to these March 20, 2013
claims only.
To the extent that Turner raises his claims against the City of San Diego and
the San Diego Police Department, dismissal of these defendants was proper
because Turner failed to allege that his constitutional rights were violated pursuant
14-55964 2

-- 2 of 3 --

to a policy or custom of the City or the police department. See Monell v. Dep’t of
Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Munger v. City of Glasgow Police Dep’t,
227 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (“To hold a police department liable for the
actions of its officers, the [plaintiff] must demonstrate a constitutional deprivation,
and show that the deprivation was visited pursuant to a police department custom
or policy.”).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
14-55964 3

-- 3 of 3 --