Williams v. State of California

Dismissal of a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 is appropriate when plaintiff fails to allege specific facts against a particular defendant other than to identify the defendant's title. Denial of leave to amend is appropriate if amendment would be futile.

Plaintiff appeals the district court's dismissal of the complaint "alleg[ing] that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion by forcing them to provide direct staff support to a developmentally disabled client who wished to attend Jehovah’s Witness services." The Ninth Circuit held that "the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint against Defendant-Appellee [was appropriate] because Plaintiffs failed to allege specific facts against Defendant other than to identify her title . . . [t]he district court’s holding that Defendants’ interpretation of the [California Lanterman Act], and its regulations, did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments; and the district court’s denial of leave to amend because of futility of amendment [was appropriate.]" AFFIRMED.