Alex Rosas et al v. Leroy Baca et al

Filing 26

ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Request to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint 19 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Tanaka, Rhambo, and Burns are dismissed. All hyperlinks in Plaintiffs' Complaint are stricken. Plaintiffs shall file a complaint in accordance with this order forthwith. (jp)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ALEX ROSAS and JONATHAN
GOODWIN, on behalf of
themselves and of those
similarly situated,

13
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
16
17
18
19
20

LEROY BACA, Sheriff of Los
Angeles County Jails; PAUL
TANAKA, Undersheriff, Los
Angeles Sheriff's
Department; CECIL RHAMBO,
Assistant Sheriff, Los
Angeles Sheriff's Department
and DENNIS BURNS, Chief of
Custody Operations Division,
Los Angeles Sheriff's
Department,

21
Defendants.
22
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-00428 DDP (SHx)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
COMPLAINT AND REQUEST TO STRIKE
PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

[Dkt. No. 19]

23
24

Presently before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

25

Plaintiffs’ Complaint and request to strike portions of the

26

complaint.

27

court is inclined to grant the motion in part, deny in part, and

28

adopt the following order.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, the

1

I.

Background

2

Plaintiffs filed a purported class action complaint alleging

3

that they witnessed, were threatened with, and suffered from

4

violence at the hands of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

5

deputies.

6

acts of violence are reflective of a pattern and practice of

7

deputy-on-inmate violence, of which Defendants are well aware.

8

(Id.)

9

four defendants, each named in their official capacities: 1) Lee

(Complaint ¶ 3.)

Plaintiffs further allege that such

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against

10

Baca, Los Angeles County Sheriff; 2) Paul Tanaka, Undersheriff; 3)

11

Cecil Rhambo, Assistant Sheriff; and 4) Dennis Burns, Chief of the

12

Custody Operations Division.1

13

to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil

14

Procedure 12(b)(6).

15

II.

16

(Id. ¶¶ 16-19.)

Defendants now move

Legal Standard
A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss when it contains

17

“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to

18

relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.

19

Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

20

544, 570 (2007)).

21

must “accept as true all allegations of material fact and must

22

construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”

23

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000).

24

complaint need not include “detailed factual allegations,” it must

25

offer “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court

Although a

26
1

27
28

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants Tanaka and Burns have been
or will be removed from their respective positions, and that their
successors will replace them as defendants in this case. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 25(d).
2

1

accusation.”

2

allegations that are no more than a statement of a legal conclusion

3

“are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 1950. In

4

other words, a pleading that merely offers “labels and

5

conclusions,” a “formulaic recitation of the elements,” or “naked

6

assertions” will not be sufficient to state a claim upon which

7

relief can be granted. Id. at 1949 (citations and internal

8

quotation marks omitted).

9

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.

Conclusory allegations or

“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should

10

assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly

11

give rise to an entitlement of relief.” Id. at 1950. Plaintiffs

12

must allege “plausible grounds to infer” that their claims rise

13

“above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-

14

56. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for

15

relief” is a “context-specific” task, “requiring the reviewing

16

court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal,

17

129 S. Ct. at 1950.

18

III. Discussion

19

A.

20

Defendants first contend that Plaintiffs’ official capacity

Redundancy

21

claims against Defendants Tanaka, Rhambo, and Burns are duplicative

22

of Plaintiffs’ official capacity claim against Defendant Baca.

23

(Motion to Dismiss at 1.)

24

County of Los Angeles as a defendant, official capacity suits, such

25

as that brought by Plaintiffs, are generally an alternative way of

26

pleading an action against the local government entity of which the

27

named officer is an agent.

28

436 U.S. 658, 690 n. 55 (1978); Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1446

Though Plaintiffs have not named the

See Monell v. Dep’t. of Social Servs.,

3

1

n. 15 (9th Cir. 1994).

As such, judgments against public servants

2

in their official capacities impose liability on local entities.

3

Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471-472 (1985).2

4

Where plaintiffs sue both a local government entity and agents

5

of that entity in their official capacities, courts may dismiss the

6

official capacity claims as duplicative.

7

954 F.Supp. 202, 204 (C.D. Cal. 1997); Vance v. County of Santa

8

Clara, 928 F.Supp. 993, 996 (N.D. Cal. 1996); c.f. Clements v.

9

Airport Authority of Washoe County, 69 F.3d 321, 337 n.20 (9th Cir.

See, e.g. Luke v. Abbott,

10

1995).

11

purposes, a suit against a local entity, this court has also

12

dismissed claims against multiple individuals in their official

13

capacities as duplicative.

14

(C.D. Cal. 2006) (dismissing six of seven defendants sued in their

15

official capacities).

16

Because an official capacity suit is, for all intents and

See Thomas v. Baca, 2006 WL 132078 *1

Plaintiffs argue that they cannot obtain effective declaratory

17

or injunctive relief unless all four official capacity defendants

18

remain in this case.

19

Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, 302 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2002) to

20

support their assertion that they may bring claims against both a

21

local entity and official capacity defendants.

22

the Fireman’s Fund court did allow claims against official capacity

23

and entity defendants, its holding was premised on the conclusion

(Opp. at 3, 4.)

Plaintiffs cite to Fireman’s

(Opp. at 3).

While

24
25
26
27
28

2

Courts are divided on the question whether a Plaintiff may
choose to name either an individual in an official capacity or the
local entity itself. Compare Bell v. Baca, 2002 WL 368532 *2 (C.D.
Cal. 2002) (declining to substitute local entity as defendant in
lieu of official capacity defendant) with Luke v. Abbott, 954
F.Supp. 202, 204 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (dismissing officer sued in his
official capacity and substituting local entity as defendant).
4

1

that the claims asserted were not duplicative.3

2

302 F.3d at 957.

3

“in a single and consolidated effort” with the state.

4

Because a claim against the municipality alone would have been

5

subject to an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense, the court found

6

that the official capacity claims were necessary and, therefore,

7

distinct.

8

Eleventh Amendment concern or other potential bar to suit.

Fireman’s Fund,

In Fireman’s Fund, the municipal defendant acted

Id. at 957.

Id. at 935.

Here, in contrast, there is no such

9

Plaintiffs’ assertion that they must name multiple official

10

capacity defendants because each of the different defendants has

11

different responsibilities is not persuasive.4

12

discussed above, any judgment against any one official capacity

13

defendant would impose liability on the county.

14

U.S. at 471-472; See also Coconut Beach Dev. LLC v. Baptiste, 2008

15

WL 1867933 *4 (D.Haw. Apr. 28, 2008) (“The court . . . suggest[s]

16

that when [Plaintiff] files its Amended Complaint, it consider

17

naming the County but not the Official-Capacity Defendants, as any

18

injunctive relief sought against the County will also bind all

19

County employees in the performance of their official duties.”).

(Opp. at 4.)

As

See Brandon, 469

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Similarly, the court in Coconut Beach Dev. LLC v. Baptiste,
2008 WL 1867933 *4 (D.Haw. Apr. 28, 2008) allowed claims against
official capacity defendants to proceed because the relevant local
entity was not a party to the suit and, therefore, there were no
duplicative claims.
4

Plaintiffs appear to misunderstand the nature of official
capacity suits, arguing that an official capacity claim against an
individual, unlike a local entity claim, requires proof of that
individual’s personal conduct. (Opp. at 6-7 n.6.) Plaintiffs’
confusion appears to stem from a misreading of Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
which involved individual capacity claims rather than official
capacity claims. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948 (“Government officials
may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their
subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.”).
5

1

Because Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Tanaka, Rhambo, and

2

Burns in their respective official capacities are duplicative of

3

the claim against Defendant Baca, the claims against Defendants

4

Tanaka, Rhambo, and Burns are dismissed.

5

B.

Sufficiency of the Pleadings

6

Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be

7

dismissed because it seeks an “obey the law” injunction, in

8

violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) and the Prison

9

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).

(Mot. at 4.)

Rule 65, however,

10

governs the contents of preliminary injunctions, and does not set

11

forth pleading standards.

12

Nor does the PLRA.

In their Reply, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ Complaint

13

fails to meet Rule 8(a)(3)’s requirement that a claim state “a

14

demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the

15

alternative or different types of relief.”

16

8(a)(3); (Reply at 6-7.)

17

for relief requests an injunction preventing Defendants from

18

physically abusing or threatening inmates, requiring the

19

development of an adequate use of force policy, requiring an

20

adequate, unbiased investigation of all use of force incidents, and

21

other relief.

22

specific to provide Defendants with notice of the relief sought, as

23

well as to yield an injunction sufficiently particular to satisfy

24

Rule 65.

25

1149-50 (9th Cir. 2011).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

The court disagrees.

(Compl. at 75.)

Plaintiffs’ prayer

Plaintiff’s prayer is sufficiently

See Del Webb Comms., Inc. v. Partington, 652 F.3d 1145,

26

C.

27

Defendants also move to strike several of Plaintiffs

28

Motion to Strike

allegations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) as
6

1

immaterial or impertinent.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); (Mot. at 6).

2

Defendants seek to strike twenty-three paragraphs containing

3

references to reports from the ACLU and other jail monitors and

4

investigators, as well as references to television news and

5

newspaper articles.

6

also contain internet hyperlinks to the source material.

7

the factual allegations contained in the disputed paragraphs are

8

neither immaterial nor impertinent, Plaintiff’s hyperlinks appear

9

to bear no legitimate relationship to Plaintiffs’ complaint and,

The majority of the paragraphs in question
Though

10

contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, are not necessary to meet

11

Plaintiffs’ burden under Iqbal.

12

Strike is granted with respect to all hyperlinks.

13

IV.

14

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

15

and Request to Strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint is GRANTED in part and

16

DENIED in part.

17

Rhambo, and Burns are dismissed.

18

Complaint are stricken.

19

accordance with this order forthwith.

Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Tanaka,
All hyperlinks in Plaintiffs’

Plaintiffs shall file a complaint in

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated: March 20, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

26
27
28
7