Juan Jose Avila v. Haley et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. The FAC is dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order within which to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall not include new defendants or new allegations that are not reasonably related to the claims asserted in the original complaint. Plaintiff is strong ly encouraged to utilize the standard civil rights complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of which is attached. Plaintiff is further advised that if he no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff's convenience. (See document for further details). (Attachments: # 1 Civil Rights Complaint Form, # 2 Notice of Dismissal Form) (mr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUAN JOSE AVILA,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. CV 14-7999 MMM (SS)
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

v.

DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendants.

15
16
17
18

I.

19

INTRODUCTION

20
21

Juan Jose Avila (“Plaintiff”), a California state prisoner

22

proceeding

23

“FAC”) alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42

24

U.S.C. § 1983.

(Dkt. No. 8).

25

courts

an

26

actions where a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity

27

or employee.

28

pro

perform

se,

has

filed

initial

a

First

Amended

Complaint

(the

Congress mandates that district

screening

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

of

complaints

in

civil

This Court may dismiss such

1

a complaint, or any portion, before service of process if it

2

concludes that the complaint (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2)

3

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (3)

4

seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

5

relief.

6

F.3d 1122, 1126-27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

7

reasons stated below, the FAC is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1-2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203
For the

8
9

II.

10

ALLEGATIONS OF THE FAC

11
12

Plaintiff sues the following individuals and entities in

13

their individual and official capacities: (1) the County of Los

14

Angeles

15

Department (the “LASD”); (3) the Los Angeles County Sheriff (the

16

“Sheriff”); (4) “O.S.J. Officer Haley” (“Haley”), a sheriff’s

17

deputy at Peter J. Pitchess Detention Center (“Pitchess”), where

18

Plaintiff

was

19

deputies

assigned

20

(collectively “Defendants”).

(“County”);

(2)

formerly
to

the

Los

incarcerated;
Pitchess

Angeles

and
(the

County

(5)
“Doe

Sheriff’s

twenty

unknown

Defendants”)

(FAC at 3-4). 1

21
Plaintiff complains of his treatment following his detention

22
23

at Pitchess. 2

24

1

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff claims that Haley assigned him to the

The FAC contained identically numbered pages. For ease of
reference, the Court has renumbered the pages consecutively.
2
Plaintiff does not state whether he was convicted prior to his
arrival at Pitchess.
“Eighth Amendment scrutiny is appropriate
only after the State has complied with the constitutional
guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions.”
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 (1979).
However, although
pretrial detainees’ claims "arise under the due process clause,
2

1

general

2

“drop-out,” placing him at risk from other inmates.

3

Plaintiff further alleges that, following a jail riot in June

4

2014, Doe Defendants beat Plaintiff, causing severe injuries.

5

(Id.).

6

hours and ultimately required transport to a hospital for further

7

treatment.

jail

population

despite

Plaintiff’s

status

as

a

gang

(FAC at 5).

Plaintiff did not receive medical treatment for several

(Id. at 7).

8
9

Plaintiff

asserts

that:

(1)

Haley’s

refusal

to

place

10

Plaintiff in protective custody violated the Eighth Amendment and

11

the Equal Protection Clause; (2) the Doe Defendants “brutally”

12

beat

13

Defendants threatened violence if Plaintiff complained of jail

14

conditions, violating Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights; (4) the

15

Sheriff’s

16

conducive to . . . misconduct”; (5) the County failed to provide

17

a safe jail environment, violating the Eighth Amendment; and (6)

18

the

19

prisoners

20

environment,

21

Plaintiff

seeks

22

$3,000,000

and

23

relief, and a jury trial.

Plaintiff,

LASD

violating

failure

failed
in

to

to

the

Eighth

supervise

provide

protective
violating
“joint
punitive

deputies

“clear

custody

the

Eighth

and

or

of

(3)

created

guidelines”
creating

Amendment.

several”

damages

Amendment;

a

for

the

Doe

“culture

placing

a

safe

jail

(Id.

at

5-6).

compensatory
$1,500,000,

damages

of

declaratory

(Id. at 8).

24
25
26
27
28

the eighth amendment guarantees provide a minimum standard of
care for determining [a person’s] rights as a pretrial detainee."
Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled on
other grounds by Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir.
2014).
3

1

III.

2

DISCUSSION

3
4

Under 28 U.S.C. section 1915A(b), the court must dismiss

5

Plaintiff’s FAC due to multiple pleading defects.

6

court must grant a pro se litigant leave to amend his defective

7

complaint unless “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of

8

the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”

9

698

F.3d

1202,

1212

(9th

Cir.

2012)

However, the

Akhtar v. Mesa,

(citation

10

quotation marks omitted).

11

and

internal

below, the FAC is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 3

Accordingly, for the reasons stated

12
13 A.

Plaintiff’s Claims Against The Sheriff, Haley And The Doe

14

Defendants In Their Official Capacity Must Be Dismissed

15
16

Plaintiff

sues

all

Defendants

in

their

individual

and

17

official capacities, for monetary damages and declaratory relief.

18

(FAC

19

Sheriff, Haley and the Doe Defendants are defective and must be

20

dismissed.

at

3-4,6).

The

official

capacity

claims

against

the

21
22

Official capacity claims are “another way of pleading an

23

action

against

an

entity

of

which

an

officer

is

an

agent.”

24

Hafter v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991) (quoting Monell v. Dep’t

25

of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)).

26
27
28

3

A magistrate judge may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend
without the approval of a district judge. See McKeever v. Block,
932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
4

1

If a government entity is named as a defendant, it is not only

2

unnecessary and redundant to name individual officers in their

3

official capacity, but also improper.

4

Reform, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t, 533 F.3d 780,

5

799 (9th Cir. 2008).

6

the

7

employees.

8

individual defendants in their official capacity are defective

9

and must be dismissed.

Sheriff,

See Ctr. for Bio-Ethical

Here, the County is a named defendant and

Haley

and

the

Accordingly,

Doe

Defendants

Plaintiff’s

are

claims

all

County

against

the

Under section 1983, Plaintiff may sue the

10

Sheriff, Haley, and the Doe Defendants only in their “individual”

11

capacities, if he seeks monetary damages against them.

12
13 B.

Plaintiff

Fails

To

14

State

Claims

Against

Haley

In

His

Individual Capacity

15
16

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and

17

unusual punishment.

18

However,

19

prisons.”

20

a

21

Plaintiff must show that the alleged constitutional deprivation

22

posed a “substantial risk of serious harm” and that the official

23

showed “deliberate indifference” to Plaintiff’s health or safety.

24

See id. at 834 (citations omitted).

valid

“[t]he

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976).

Constitution

does

not

mandate

comfortable

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994).
Eighth

Amendment

claim

against

a

prison

To state
official,

25
26

A prisoner does not have a constitutional right to receive a

27

particular

security

28

segregated

from

classification

other

prisoners
5

or
on

to
the

be
basis

automatically
of

a

gang

1

affiliation.

2

1997) (no right to particular security classification); Labatad

3

v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 714 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2013)

4

(cohousing rival gang members, without more, is insufficient to

5

show prison officials’ deliberate indifference).

See Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 828 (9th Cir.

6
7

Plaintiff does not assert that he was ultimately harmed by

8

his

placement

in

the

general

population.

To

the

contrary,

9

Plaintiff states that he was subjected to excessive force by the

10

Doe

11

attacked

12

Plaintiff does not show that his assignment placed him at risk,

13

as nothing happened to him as a result of this assignment, and

14

his

15

Leave to amend is granted, however.

Defendants
by

Eighth

following

fellow

a

riot

inmates.

Amendment

claim

over

(FAC

against

jail

at

conditions,

5-6).

Haley

not

Accordingly,

must

be

dismissed.

16
17

Plaintiff also fails to state an equal protection claim.
such

18

state

19

ordinarily show that “the defendants acted with an intent or

20

purpose

21

membership in a protected class.”

22

668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001).

23

refusal to place him in protective custody violated his right to

24

equal protection.

25

considered his request for protective custody less urgent because

26

Plaintiff was “classified as a Southern Hispanic” rather than

27

white.

28

protective custody not on the basis of his race but because of

to

a

claim

under

discriminate

(Id.).

section

against

the

a

plaintiff

plaintiff

based

must

upon

Lee v. Los Angeles, 250 F.3d

Here, Plaintiff asserts that Haley’s

(FAC at 5).

However,

1983,

To

Plaintiff asserts that Haley

Plaintiff

6

alleges

that

he

sought

1

his alleged former gang membership.

2

equal protection claim must be dismissed.

3

granted, however.

(Id.).

Accordingly, his
Leave to amend is

4
5

C. Plaintiff Fails To Allege A Valid First Amendment Claim

6
7

Plaintiff also fails to state a valid First Amendment claim.

8

Prisoners

“have

9

grievances.”

a

First

Amendment

right

to

file

prison

Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir.

10

2009).

“Retaliation against prisoners for their exercise of this

11

right is itself a constitutional violation, and prohibited as a

12

matter of clearly established law.”

13

quotation

14

retaliation against a prisoner must include “(1) [a]n assertion

15

that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2)

16

because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such

17

action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment

18

rights,

19

legitimate correctional goal.”

marks

and

(5)

omitted).

the

A

action

did

Id. (citation and internal
First

not

Amendment

reasonably

claim

for

advance

a

Id.

20
21

Plaintiff alleges that the Doe Defendants violated his First

22

Amendment rights by threatening that Plaintiff would “disappear”

23

if he filed a prison grievance based on the use of force.

24

at 7).

25

grievance “later that day.”

26

his grievance in the exhibits accompanying his FAC.

27

It is therefore clear that the alleged threats did not chill

28

Plaintiff’s

(FAC

However, Plaintiff alleges that he nevertheless filed a

exercise

of

(Id.).

his

Plaintiff includes a copy of

First
7

Amendment

(Id. at 9).

rights.

As

1

Plaintiff’s pleading directly contradicts the fourth element of a

2

First

3

dismissed.

Amendment

claim,

this

claim

is

defective

and

must

be

4
5

The Court notes that Local Rule 19-1 provides that “[n]o

6

complaint or petition shall be filed that includes more than ten

7

(10) Doe or fictitiously named parties.”

8

Plaintiff

9

Accordingly, the excessive “Doe” allegations are in violation of

10

names

twenty

such

DOE

C.D. Cal. R. 19-1.

defendants.

(FAC

at

4).

the Local Rules.

11
12 D.

Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim Against The Sheriff In His

13

Individual Capacity

14
15

Plaintiff asserts that the Sheriff’s failure to supervise

16

Haley and the Doe Defendants created a “culture” conducive to

17

constitutional

18

liability

is

19

plaintiff

must

20

through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the

21

Constitution.”

22

plaintiff

23

participation or “a sufficient causal connection” between the

24

official’s

25

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011).

violations.
inapplicable

must

plead

(FAC
to

that

at

section

each

5).
1983

Because
suits,

vicarious

however,

Government-official

defendant,

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009).
establish

conduct

and

the

either

alleged

26
27
28
8

the

official’s

constitutional

“a

The

personal

violation.

1

Plaintiff is suing the Sheriff in his individual capacity

2

(FAC at 3-4) but does not assert that the Sheriff personally

3

participated

4

Moreover, Plaintiff does not identify any specific failures by

5

the Sheriff, identify specific employees whom the Sheriff failed

6

to

7

sufficient to explain the basis for his claim.

8

to show a causal connection between the Sheriff’s alleged action

9

or

in

supervise,

inaction

violating

or

and

describe

any

Plaintiff’s

the

resulting

constitutional

rights. 4

constitutional

“culture”

in

detail

As such, he fails

violations.

Accordingly,

10

Plaintiff’s claims against the Sheriff in his individual capacity

11

must be dismissed.

Leave to amend is granted, however.

12
13 E.

Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim Against The County

14
15

Although there is “no constitutional impediment to municipal

16

liability,” Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n.54, a local government unit

17

may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees under a

18

respondeat superior theory of liability.

19

691.

20

Plaintiff must show both a deprivation of constitutional rights

21

and

22

“moving force” behind the constitutional violation.

23

Gilroy Garlic Festival Ass'n, 541 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2008).

24

There must be “a direct causal link between a [County] policy or

25

4

26
27
28

Monell, 436 U.S. at

To assert a valid section 1983 claim against the County,

a

departmental

policy,

custom

or

practice

that

was

the

Villegas v.

John L. Scott was Interim Sheriff when Plaintiff’s claims arose
in June 2014 and when Plaintiff filed his FAC on November 24,
2014.
(See FAC at 3, 8).
See Biography at LASD website,
http://sheriff.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/lasd (last visited Feb.
20, 2015). In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should identify,
to the extent possible, any party sued in an individual capacity.
9

1

custom

2

(quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989)).

3

Proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity, or even

4

a series of “isolated or sporadic incidents,” is insufficient to

5

impose

6

Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Okla. City v.

7

Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823-24 (1985)).

8

“founded upon practices of sufficient duration, frequency and

9

consistency that the conduct has become a traditional method of

and

the

alleged

liability

constitutional

under

10

carrying out policy.”

11

section

deprivation.”

1983.

Gant

v.

Cnty.

See

id.

of

Los

Rather, liability must be

Cir. 1996).

Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th

12
13

Plaintiff

asserts

failing

County
provide

a

his

Eighth

15

environment for [P]laintiff’s detention.”

16

Plaintiff does not identify a policy, custom or practice that led

17

the unsafe jail conditions.

18

Plaintiff’s alleged injuries is insufficient to establish that

19

such

20

County may not be held liable for the acts of its employees under

21

a respondeat superior theory of liability.

22

at 691.

23

claim against the County.

existed.

to

violated

Amendment

policy

“by

the

14

a

rights

that

reasonably

(FAC at 6).

safe

However,

The single incident giving rise to

Moreover,

as

already

discussed,

the

See Monell, 436 U.S.

Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a valid Monell
Leave to amend is granted, however.

24
25 F.

The LASD Is An Improper Defendant

26
27
28

Plaintiff

alleges

that

the

LASD

failed

to

provide

clear

guidelines for placing prisoners in protective custody and to
10

1

provide a reasonably safe jail environment.

2

relief

3

violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by

4

federal

5

‘person’ (4) acting under color of state law.”

6

Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991).

7

department is not a “person” for the purposes of a section 1983

8

action.

9

(police narcotics task force not a “person” or entity subject to

10

suit under section 1983); United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236,

11

1239 (9th Cir. 2005) (Ferguson, J., concurring) (local government

12

departments and bureaus are generally not considered “persons”

13

within the meaning of section 1983).

14

not a proper defendant in this action, and Plaintiff’s claims

15

against LASD must be dismissed.

under

section

statute,

(2)

1983,

a

plaintiff

proximately

caused

(FAC at 6).
must

(3)

plead:

by

To gain
“(1)

conduct

of

a

a

Crumpton v.

However, a police

See Hervey v. Estes, 65 F.3d 784, 791 (9th Cir. 1995)

Accordingly, the LASD is

16
17

IV.

18

CONCLUSION

19
20

For the reasons stated above, the FAC is dismissed with

21

leave to amend.

22

he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum

23

and Order within which to file a Second Amended Complaint.

24

any

25

described above.

26

new allegations that are not reasonably related to the claims

27

asserted

28

Complaint, if any, shall be complete in itself and shall bear

amended

in

If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action,

complaint,

the

the

Plaintiff

shall

cure

the

In

defects

Plaintiff shall not include new defendants or

original

complaint.

11

The

Second

Amended

1

both

2

number assigned to this action.

3

to any previously filed complaint in this matter.

the

designation

“Second

Amended

Complaint”

and

the

case

It shall not refer in any manner

4
5

In

any

amended
to

complaint,

those

Plaintiff

operative

facts

should

supporting

confine
each

of

his

6

allegations

his

7

claims.

8

Civil Procedure 8(a), all that is required is a “short and plain

9

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to Federal Rule of

10

relief.”

11

standard

12

complaint,

13

complaint, Plaintiff should identify the nature of each separate

14

legal

15

support

16

encouraged to keep his statements concise and to omit irrelevant

17

details.

18

include legal argument.

Plaintiff is also advised to omit any

19

claims

lacks

Plaintiff
civil
a

claim
each

is

rights
copy

and

complaint

of

make

of

his

strongly

which

clear

form

is

what

separate

encouraged
when

filing

attached.

specific

claims.

to

In

factual

Plaintiff

utilize

the

any

amended

any

amended

allegations
is

strongly

It is not necessary for Plaintiff to cite case law or

for

which

he

a

sufficient

factual

basis.

20
21

Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely

22

file

a

Second

23

deficiencies described above, will result in a recommendation

24

that

25

prosecute and obey Court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

26

Procedure 41(b).

27

longer wishes to pursue this action, he may voluntarily dismiss

28

it by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with Federal

this

Amended

action

be

Complaint,

dismissed

or

with

failure

prejudice

to

for

correct

failure

the

to

Plaintiff is further advised that if he no

12

1

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).

2

attached for Plaintiff’s convenience.

A form Notice of Dismissal is

3
4

DATED:

February 26, 2015

5
/S/
__________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8

NOTICE
9
10
Reports and Recommendations are not appealable to the Court
11
of Appeals, but may be subject to the right of any party to file
12
objections as provided in the Local Rules Governing the Duties of
13
Magistrate Judges and review by the District Judge whose initials
14
appear in the docket number.

No notice of appeal pursuant to the

15
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed until entry
16
of the judgment of the District Court.
17
18
THIS ORDER IS NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN WESTLAW, LEXIS
19
OR ANY OTHER LEGAL DATABASE.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13