The following excerpt is from Head v. Cnty. of Sacramento, No. 2:19-cv-01663-CKD-P (E.D. Cal. 2019):
In this case, the undersigned recommends dismissing the complaint without leave to amend. Here, amendment would be futile because the deficiencies identified above are not curable in a manner that would lead to any cognizable claim for relief against a defendant who is not immune from suit. If plaintiff's federal convictions are invalidated based on his pending post-conviction challenges, plaintiff may file a new complaint. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 1995). For all these reasons, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed without leave to amend. Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) ("A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.").
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.