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-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?