Jeanne Mundongo Manunga v. Louis et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. Response due within 30 days. (See document for details). (ib)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEANNE MUNDONGO MANUNGA,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

vs.
LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. CV 14-3910 AG (RZ)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

16
17

The pro se and in forma pauperis plaintiff in this Bivens action, Jeanne

18

Mundongo Manunga, is an immigration detainee, i.e., is in custody for removal

19

proceedings. She appears to assert that she was beaten and injured by an Immigration and

20

Customs Enforcement (ICE) guard, and that four additional ICE (or other federal)

21

employees neglected or mistreated her around the same time. Due to certain pleading flaws

22

discussed below, the Court will dismiss the initial complaint with leave to amend.

23
24

I.

25

COURT’S OBLIGATION TO SCREEN IN FORMA PAUPERIS CASES

26

The Court must screen all complaints, including Plaintiff’s, brought in forma

27

pauperis. See Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); 28 U.S.C.

28

§ 1915(e)(2) (screening of in forma pauperis actions generally). The law requires this

1

Court to“dismiss the case if at any time it determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous

2

or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks

3

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

4

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

28 U.S.C.

5

A “complaint . . . must contain either direct or inferential allegations

6

respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal

7

theory”; otherwise, it is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Bell Atlantic

8

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (quoting,

9

and including original emphasis from, Car Carriers Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101,

10

1106 (7th Cir. 1984)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679-80, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

11

173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (courts weighing dismissal should not accept, as true, allegations

12

“that are no more than conclusions” and should dismiss if the well-pleaded allegations do

13

not “plausibly suggest” an entitlement to relief).

14

A pro se plaintiff’s civil rights complaint must be construed liberally, and the

15

plaintiff must be given leave to amend his complaint, “unless it is absolutely clear that the

16

deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809

17

F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). A dismissal with leave to amend is a non-dispositive

18

matter within the purview of a Magistrate Judge. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798

19

(9th Cir. 1991).

20
21

II.

22

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

23

According to Plaintiff, on August 29, 2013, an ICE officer named Louis

24

battered Plaintiff at the federal building at 300 North Los Angeles Street in Los Angeles,

25

breaking her coccyx and causing other injuries. Two additional ICE employees, a female

26

with the last name of Gutierrez and a male John Doe 1, were present but neither halted

27

Louis’s assault nor spoke up in protest. Plaintiff sues a fourth defendant, a male ICE

28

supervisor named Rivera, for reasons that are largely unintelligible: “He malic[i]ous,
-2-

1

govern, treating retaliating me and other Detainee retaliating to report criminal act, refuse

2

to report . . . physical assault and treat other Detainee[.]” Fifth and finally, Plaintiff sues

3

John Doe 2, a nurse, for “malicious[ly]” refusing to provide or arrange for medical care

4

even though Doe 2 personally saw that Plaintiff’s hand was bleeding and her knee was

5

swelling. See Comp. at 3-4. Plaintiff sues all five Defendants solely in their official

6

capacity, seeking millions of dollars in damages and other relief. (Attached to the

7

complaint are various medical records, all or almost all of which pertain principally to

8

medical visits long after Plaintiff’s August 29, 2013 injuries. In any amended complaint,

9

Plaintiff should omit such materials, for they are prematurely submitted at best.)

10
11

III.

12

SHORTCOMINGS IN THE COMPLAINT
A.

13

Improperly Targets Defendants Solely In Official Capacity

14

A claim targeting a government employee in his or her official capacity is an

15

assertion that the plaintiff was harmed by the employing agency’s improper policy or

16

practice. In contrast, a claim against government employee in his or her individual capacity

17

is an assertion that the employee him- or herself acted wrongly, in violation of the

18

employing agency’s proper policies. Plaintiff’s factual allegations make clear that she

19

believes it was the defendants’ individual wrongful acts and omissions, rather than the

20

government’s bad policies, that violated the law and harmed her. Thus, she should have

21

targeted Defendants in their individual capacity. She may do so in an amended complaint.

22

(Plaintiff may sue a government employee in his or her official capacity as well, but only

23

if she can allege in good faith that a government policy or practice, rather than individual

24

misconduct, was the moving force behind her injuries.)

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-3-

B.

1

Fails To Specify Any Legal Claim(s)

2

Even in pro se cases, plaintiffs must state their various claims separately, each

3

identifying a discrete alleged violation of the Constitution. See Bautista v. Los Angeles

4

County, 216 F.3d 837, 839-40 (9th Cir. 2000). This separation serves the purpose of

5

clarity:

6
7

Experience teaches that, unless cases are pleaded clearly and precisely, issues

8

are not joined, discovery is not controlled, the trial court’s docket becomes

9

unmanageable, the litigants suffer and society loses confidence in the court’s
ability to administer justice.

10
11
12

Id. at 840-41 (quoting Anderson v. District Bd. of Trustees, 77 F.3d 364, 367 (11th Cir.

13

1996)) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 10(b) and JAMES W. MOORE, ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL

14

PRACTICE, § 10.03[2][a] (3d ed. 1997)).

15

Here, Plaintiff asserts no legal claim at all. Instead, in the space provided in

16

the form complaint for the kind of legal claim being asserted, Plaintiff simply begins her

17

factual narrative. The reader is left to guess, based on the factual narrative, that perhaps

18

she wishes to assert, the following claims for violations of her constitutional rights as a

19

federal civil detainee, perhaps among others:

20

1.

Excessive force by Louis;

21

2.

Deliberate indifference by Gutierrez and guard Doe 1; and

22

3.

Deliberate medical indifference by Doe 2.

23

The complaint makes no intelligible claim against supervisor Rivera, who Plaintiff does

24

not allege was present when Louis attacked her.

25

Even more unclear is whether Plaintiff intends to assert any additional legal

26

claim(s). Sprinkled throughout the complaint are terms hinting at this possibility, such as

27

“retaliation.” The Court will not speculate about any possible legal claims that are not

28

clearly asserted in any amended complaint and will not give legal advice about the
-4-

1

availability or merits of any claim.) In any amended complaint, Plaintiff must state one or

2

more express, separate claims for relief, each including –

3

(1)

a single civil right that defendant(s) allegedly violated, e.g., a federal employee’s

4

deliberate indifference to an immigration detainee in violation of the Fifth

5

Amendment; and

6

(2)

as to each count of each claim, the specific events and other facts that give rise to,

7

and that make out a prima facie case of, that specific claim. (If Plaintiff asserts more

8

than one legal claim, then she must make clear which of the Defendants she targets

9

in each claim.)

10
11

IV.

12

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the initial complaint hereby is DISMISSED, and leave

13
14

to amend is granted. More specifically, Plaintiff has three options:

15

(1)

Plaintiff may pursue this action further by filing an original and one copy of a

16

pleading captioned as her First Amended Complaint (1AC), bearing the current case

17

number, within 30 days of the filing date of this Order. To withstand another

18

dismissal, the 1AC must correct the deficiencies identified in this Order and must

19

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules. The

20

1AC must be complete in itself and must not refer to any prior version of the

21

complaint.

22

(2)

Plaintiff may file a “Notice of Intent Not to Amend Complaint” within 30 days

23

of the filing date of this Order. If Plaintiff timely files such a Notice, then the

24

undersigned will recommend to the assigned District Judge that this action be

25

dismissed, freeing Plaintiff to appeal the dismissal on the grounds cited above. See

26

Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063-66 (9th Cir. 2004).

27
28

(3)

Plaintiff may do nothing in response to this Order. If Plaintiff does not file a
document pursuant to either option 1 or 2 above within the 30-day deadline, then the
-5-

1

Court shall deem her to have consented to dismissal of this action for failure to

2

prosecute and for failure to comply with this Order. See id.

3

The Court cautions Plaintiff that if she fails to file a timely amended

4

complaint or otherwise fails to comply substantially with the terms of this Order, then

5

this action may be dismissed.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

DATED: June 16, 2014

9
10
11

RALPH ZAREFSKY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-