Webster v. Bronson, 402 Fed.Appx. 280, 282 (9th Cir. 2010); Delacruz v. State Bar of California, No. 16-CV-06858-BLF, 2018 WL 3077750, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2018); Scott v. Diesman, No. CV 09-7215-GHK PLA, 2010 WL 1194228, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2010). The conspiracy-based claim fails for multiple reasons as a matter of law.
Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish Cty., 119 Wash.2d 91, 101 (1992); Dutton v. Washington Physicians Health Program, 87 Wash.App. 614 (1997); Webster v. Bronson, No. C07-5661 FDB, 2009 WL 3185922, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 2, 2009), aff'd, 402 Fed.Appx. 280 (9th Cir. 2010).
Since Iqbal, courts have repeatedly rejected conclusory Monell allegations that lack factual content from which one could plausibly infer Monell liability. See, e.g., Webster v. Bronson, 402 F. App'x 280, 282 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding plaintiff had "failed to state a Monell claim because he alleged no facts suggesting that his constitutional rights were violated pursuant to a policy, practice, or custom of the County.") (emphasis added); Rodriguez v. City of Modesto, 535 Fed. App'x 643, 646 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming the district court's dismissal of Monell claim based only on conclusory allegations and lacking factual allegations).
Conclusory allegations of conspiracy like those in the Amended Complaint fail to state a claim. Webster v. Bronson, 402 F. App'x 280, 282 (9th Cir. 2010); Delacruz v. State Bar of California, No. 16-CV-06858-BLF, 2018 WL 3077750, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2018); Scott v. Diesman, No. CV 09-7215-GHK PLA, 2010 WL 1194228, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2010). Richter has also not pleaded facts to show how defendants conspired to deprive her of her rights because of her testimony in federal court.