Charles Lee Peoples, Jr. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff Dept et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. The Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of thi s Memorandum and Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint. In any amended complaint, Plaintiff shall cure the defects described above. Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil rights complaint form when filing any am ended 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 Plaintiffs 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

CHARLES LEE PEOPLES, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING

v.

13
14

Case No. CV 17-03756 SVW (SS)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

15

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendants.

16
17

I.

18

INTRODUCTION

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Charles Lee Peoples, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a California
state

prisoner

proceeding

pro

se,

has

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

filed

a

Civil

(Dkt. No. 1).

Rights

Congress

mandates that district courts perform an initial screening of
complaints in civil actions where a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or employee.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

This Court

may dismiss such a complaint, or any portion thereof, before
service of process if the complaint (1) is frivolous or malicious,

1

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

2

(3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

3

relief.

4

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

5

stated below, the Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.1

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

6
7

II.

8

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS

9
10

It is not entirely clear who Plaintiff is attempting to sue.

11

The “Los Angeles County Sheriff Department” (“LACSD”) is the named

12

defendant in the caption of the Complaint.

13

at 1).

14

Complaint, he names only an anonymous employee of the North County

15

Correctional Facility (“NCCF”), where he was housed at the time of

16

the alleged incident.

17

also requests an official review of “the deputies involved.”

18

at 6).

19

individual or official capacity.

(Complaint (“Compl.”)

However, in the list of defendants in the body of the

(Id. at 3).

In his prayer for relief, he
(Id.

He does not specify whether Defendants are sued in an
(Id.).

20
21

The Complaint summarily alleges that, on May 14, 2016, a

22

lieutenant ordered Plaintiff and other inmates to clean a dorm.

23

(Id. at 5).

24

left the air polluted by “hazardous and toxic fumes.”

25

Plaintiff

26
27
28

and

The room had recently been used for welding, which

five

other

inmates

worked

in

the

room

(Id.).
without

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).
1

2

1

ventilation, lost consciousness, and were “emergency escorted” to

2

the infirmary.

3

injuries as a result of the incident.

(Id.).

Plaintiff claims to suffer from continuing
(Id. at 5-6).

4
5

The specific grounds for Plaintiff’s claims are unclear.

6

However,

the

Complaint

7

Defendants are liable under the Eighth Amendment for cruel and

8

unusual

9

“inflicting harm to inmates,” “safety violations” and “abuse of

punishment,

as

appears

a

(Id. at 5).

to

result

allege

of

that

requiring

LACSD

and

forced

Doe

labor,

10

authority.”

He also alleges a state law negligence

11

claim. (Id.). Plaintiff prays for five million dollars in damages,

12

“disciplinary action” and an “official review” of the deputies and

13

the facility.

(Id. at 6).

14
15

III.

16

DISCUSSION

17
18

Under

28

U.S.C.

§

1915A(b),

the

Court

must

dismiss

the

19

Complaint due to pleading defects.

20

pro se litigant leave to amend his defective complaint unless “it

21

is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could

22

not be cured by amendment.”

23

(9th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

24

It is not “absolutely clear” that at least some of the defects of

25

Plaintiff’s

26

Complaint is therefore DISMISSED with leave to amend.

Complaint

could

However, a court must grant a

Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212

not

27
28
3

be

cured

by

amendment.

The

1

A.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Is An Improper

2

Defendant

3
4

There is “no constitutional impediment to municipal liability”

5

under Section 1983.

6

York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.54, 691 (1978); see also Pembaur v. City

7

of

8

analysis

9

department, agency or unit of a local government is an improper

Cincinnati,
of

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New

475

U.S.

municipal

469,

483

liability

(1986)
to

(extending

counties).

Monell’s

However,

a

10

defendant.

See Hervey v. Estes, 65 F.3d 784, 701 (9th Cir. 1995)

11

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

12

suit under section 1983).

13

defendant in this action, and Plaintiff’s claims against LACSD must

14

be dismissed. If Plaintiff wishes to sue the County of Los Angeles,

15

he must meet the standard indicated below.

Accordingly, the LACSD is not a proper

16
17

B.

Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim Against The County

18
19

Plaintiff may have intended to sue Los Angeles County.

20

municipality

21

constitutional violations occurring as the result of an official

22

government policy or custom.

23

Tex., 503 U.S. 115, 121 (1992); Monell, 436 U.S. at 694.

24

a valid section 1983 claim against Los Angeles County, Plaintiff

25

must

26

departmental policy, custom or practice that was the “moving force”

27

behind the constitutional violation.

28

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

show

may

both

be

a

held

liable

under

Section

1983

only

A
for

Collins v. City of Harker Heights,

deprivation

of

4

constitutional

To assert

rights

and

a

Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic
There must be

1

a ‘direct causal link between a [County] policy or custom and the

2

alleged constitutional deprivation.’

3

v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989)).

4

of unconstitutional activity, or even a series of ‘isolated and

5

sporadic incidents,’” will not impose liability under section 1983.

6

Gant v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir. 2014)

7

(quoting Okla. City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823-24 (1985)).

8

Rather, liability must be “founded upon practices of sufficient

9

duration, frequency and consistency that the conduct has become a

Id. (quoting City of Canton
Proof of a single incident

10

traditional method of carrying out policy.”

11

Trevino v. Gates, 99

F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996).

12
13

Plaintiff does not identify a policy, custom or practice that

14

led to his alleged injuries.

The single incident Plaintiff alleges

15

is not enough to establish the existence of such a policy.

16

result, Plaintiff fails to state a valid Monell claim against the

17

County, and the Complaint must be dismissed, with leave to amend.

As a

18
19
20

C.

The

Complaint

Fails

To

State

A

Claim

Against

The

Doe

Defendants

21
22

The Complaint also sues a Defendant whose name is unknown to

23

Plaintiff but is “documented by Inspector General Monitor Barbra

24

Phillips.”

25

against “unknown” defendants.

26

1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999).

27

defendants when the identity of the alleged defendants is not known

28

before filing the complaint.

(Compl. at 3).

Generally, courts do not favor actions
Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d

However, a plaintiff may sue unnamed

Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637,
5

1

642 (9th Cir. 1980).

2

plaintiff “the opportunity through discovery to identify unknown

3

defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover

4

the identities.”

5

to learn the identity of unnamed defendants.

Id.

If that is the case, a court gives the

A plaintiff must diligently pursue discovery

6
7

Here,

however,

8

Defendants)

9

Defendant

must

but

be

seeks

the

claims

against

dismissed.
relief

the

Plaintiff

against

the

Doe
sues

Defendant

(or

only

Doe

“deputies

one

involved.”

10

(Compl. at 3, 6).

To state a claim against more than one deputy,

11

Plaintiff must identify each Doe Defendant as “Doe No. 1, Doe No.

12

2,” etc., and show how each Defendant individually participated in

13

the alleged constitutional violations, whether or not Plaintiff

14

knows the Defendant’s name.

15

dismissed, with leave to amend.

Accordingly, the Complaint must be

16
17

D.

Plaintiff Fails To State A Cruel And Unusual Punishment Claim

18
19

Plaintiff broadly claims that he was subjected to “cruel and

20

unusual punishment.”

(Compl. at 5).

This punishment included

21

“forced labor,” “abuse of authority” and “safety violations.”

22

(Id.).

23

against the LACSD, one or more Doe Defendants, or both.

It is unclear whether Plaintiff is raising this claim

24
25

Infliction of suffering on prisoners that is “totally without

26

penological justification” violates the Eighth Amendment.

27

v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981).

28

wanton infliction of pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual
6

Rhodes

Only “the unnecessary and

1

punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.”

Whitley v. Albers,

2

475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (internal quotation marks and citation

3

omitted).

4

barbarous treatment protected against by the [E]ighth [A]mendment.”

5

Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491, 494 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985).

6

state an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must allege that prison

7

officials acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk

8

of serious harm.

9

Prison officials manifest deliberate indifference if they know of

10

and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s safety or health.

11

Id. at 837.

The pain must amount to “the type of shocking and

To

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994).

12
13

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Doe Defendants told him to clean

14

a room allegedly filled with noxious fumes.

15

Complaint

16

purposely ignored the risk of the fumes.

17

provide a detailed description of the “forced labor” to which he

18

was

19

regulations were allegedly violated.

20

violations of safety regulations are not themselves constitutional

21

violations.

22

barbarous” intentional conduct by any Defendant that would rise to

23

the level of a constitutional violation, the Complaint fails to

24

state a constitutional claim.

See Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830

25

F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987).

Therefore, the Complaint must be

26

dismissed, with leave to amend.

27

//

28

//

fails

allegedly

to

show

subjected,

Because

whether

nor

Doe

does

Plaintiff

does

7

(Compl. at 5).

Defendants

knew

of

The
and

Also, Plaintiff does not

he

specify

which

safety

Plaintiff is advised that

not

allege

“shocking

and

1

E.

2

Plaintiff Fails To Allege A Deliberate Indifference Claim
Against Any Defendant

3
4

It is also possible that Plaintiff may be attempting to state

5

an Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate medical treatment.

6

To state a claim, a prisoner must demonstrate that the defendant

7

was “deliberately indifferent” to his “serious medical needs.”

8

Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006).

9

a “serious medical need,” the prisoner must show that “failure to
[the]

prisoner’s

condition

could

result

To establish

10

treat

in

further

11

significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of

12

pain.’”

13

v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (the existence

14

of a serious medical need is determined by an objective standard).

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (citation omitted); see also Morgan

15
16

To establish “deliberate indifference” to such a need, the

17

prisoner must demonstrate: “(a) a purposeful act or failure to

18

respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm

19

caused by the indifference.”

20

appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere

21

with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which

22

prison

23

omitted).

24

serious risk of harm and must have consciously disregarded that

25

risk.

26

the defendant’s “overall treatment” of the prisoner does not state

27

a deliberate indifference claim.

physicians

provide

(Id.).

medical

Deliberate indifference “may

care.”

(Id.)

(citations

The defendant must have been subjectively aware of a

See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 839.

An “isolated exception” to

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.

28
8

1

To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging that his loss of

2

consciousness

was

an

objectively

serious

medical

need,

the

3

Complaint does not allege that Doe Defendants were subjectively

4

aware of, and deliberately chose to ignore, Plaintiff’s medical

5

needs.

6

attention after he fainted.

7

allege

8

intentionally interfered with his medical treatment.

9

to the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to assert a deliberate

10

indifference claim based on his medical care, the claim must be

11

dismissed, with leave to amend.

In fact, Plaintiff received immediate, “emergency” medical

facts

showing

(Compl. at 5).

the

Defendants

Plaintiff does not

denied,

delayed

or

Accordingly,

12
13

F.

Plaintiff Fails To State A State Law Negligence Claim

14
15

Plaintiff also may be attempting to assert a state law tort

16

claim for negligence.

However, the Complaint does not satisfy the

17

jurisdictional requirements for alleging a state law tort claim,

18

such as negligence, in a civil action against government actors.

19
20

Under

the

California

Government

Claims

Act

(“CGCA”),

a

21

plaintiff may not bring an action for damages against a public

22

employee or entity unless he first presents a written claim to the

23

local governmental entity within six months of the incident.

24

Mabe v. San Bernadino Cnt’y, Dept. of Public Social Services, 237

25

F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.4

26

(“[N]o suit for money or damages may be brought against a public

27

entity . . . until a written claim therefor has been presented to

28

the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been
9

See

1

deemed to have been rejected by the board . . .”).

A plaintiff

2

must allege that the written claim was presented to the government

3

entity or explain why presentation should be excused, or the

4

complaint is subject to dismissal.

5

Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995).

Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils.

6
7

Internal

prison

grievances

are

separate

from

and

do

not

8

satisfy the CGCA’s claim presentation requirement.

See Hendon v.

9

Ramsey, 528 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1069-70 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (“Although

10

Plaintiff has demonstrated successfully that he utilized the prison

11

grievance process to exhaust his federal [constitutional] claims

12

by filing an inmate appeal, and has attached documentation in the

13

form of his CDC 602 form and administrative responses, these

14

documents do not satisfy the CTCA [California Tort Claims Act] with

15

respect to his state law negligence claims.”).

16

failure to exhaust an administrative remedy is a jurisdictional,

17

not a procedural, defect.”

18

Cal. App. 3d 878, 890 (1985).

Also, “[t]he

Miller v. United Airlines, Inc., 174

19
20

To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim

21

for negligence, the claim fails because the Complaint does not

22

allege that Plaintiff presented his claim to the appropriate agency

23

before filing suit as required by the CGCA.2

24

Complaint

25

Plaintiff is cautioned that he should not assert such a claim

26

unless he can either show that he satisfied the CGCA presentation

must

be

dismissed,

with

leave

to

Accordingly, the
amend.

However,

27
The Complaint reflects Plaintiff’s attempt to exhaust the internal
prison grievance process only. (Compl. at 2).
2

28

10

1

requirement, or explain why exhaustion should be excused under the

2

particular circumstances of this case.

3
4

G.

Plaintiff’s Request For Relief Is Defective

5
6

Plaintiff

requests

an

“official

review”

of

7

“disciplinary action” against the deputies involved.

8

6).

NCCF

and

(Compl. at

Plaintiff has no constitutional right to this relief.

9
10

Requests for prospective relief are limited by 18 U.S.C.

11

§ 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires

12

that the relief requested “extend[] no further than necessary to

13

correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least

14

intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal

15

right.”

16

rights of persons not before the court.’”

17

Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Zenith Radio

18

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969)).

19

Therefore, Plaintiff may not demand relief against the “facility”

20

(NCCF) or any official who is not party to this action because such

21

entities and persons are outside the Court’s jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Court “may not attempt to determine the
Price v. City of

22
23

A court’s duty to protect inmates’ constitutional rights does

24

not confer the power to manage prisons, a task for which courts

25

are ill-equipped.

26

Cir. 1986), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515

27

U.S. 472 (1995).

28

an investigation.

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1086 (9th

Furthermore, there is no constitutional right to
Cf. Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619
11

1

(1973)

2

cognizable

interest

3

another”).

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief in the form

4

of

5

because the Court does not have the ability to grant the requested

6

relief.

7

to amend.

an

(observing

that

investigation

in

or

“a

private

the

citizen

prosecution

disciplinary

lacks

or

action

a

judicially

nonprosecution

cannot

be

of

granted

Accordingly, the Complaint must be dismissed, with leave

8
9

H.

The Complaint Violates Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 8

10
11

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a

12

complaint contain “‘a short and plain statement of the claim

13

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give

14

the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

15

grounds upon which it rests.’”

16

544, 555 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)).

17

violated when a pleading “says too little” and “when a pleading

18

says too much.”

19

2013) (emphasis in original); see also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v.

20

Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011)

21

(a complaint violates Rule 8 if a defendant would have difficulty

22

understanding and responding to the complaint).

Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
Rule 8 may be

Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir.

23
24

Here, the Complaint violates Rule 8 because Plaintiff does

25

not clearly identify the nature of each of the legal claims he is

26

bringing, the specific facts giving rise to each claim, or the

27

specific

28

brought.

Defendant

or

Defendants

against

whom

each

claim

is

Plaintiff also does not specify whether he is suing
12

1

Defendants in their individual or official capacities.

Without

2

more

to

3

Complaint.

4

Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend.

specific

information,

Defendants

cannot

See Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1058.

respond

the

Accordingly, the

5
6

IV.

7

CONCLUSION

8
9

For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is dismissed with

10

leave to amend.

If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action,

11

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

12

and Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint.

13

amended complaint, Plaintiff shall cure the defects described

14

above.

15

allegations that are not reasonably related to the claims asserted

16

in prior complaints.

17

be complete in itself and shall bear both the designation “First

18

Amended Complaint” and the case number assigned to this action.

19

shall not refer in any manner to any prior complaint.

20

shall limit his action only to those Defendants who are properly

21

named

22

discussed above.

Plaintiff

in

such

a

shall

not

include

new

defendants

In any

or

new

The First Amended Complaint, if any, shall

complaint,

consistent

with

the

It

Plaintiff

authorities

23
24

In

any

amended

complaint,

Plaintiff

should

confine

his

25

allegations to those operative facts supporting each of his claims.

26

Plaintiff

27

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

28

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

is

advised

that

pursuant

13

to

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

1

Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil

2

rights complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of

3

which is attached.

4

clear the nature and grounds for each claim and specifically

5

identify the Defendants he maintains are liable for that claim.

6

Plaintiff shall not assert any claims for which he cannot allege a

7

proper factual basis.

In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should make

8
9

Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that the failure to timely

10

file

a

First

Amended

Complaint,

or

failure

to

correct

the

11

deficiencies described above, will result in a recommendation that

12

this entire action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to

13

prosecute and obey Court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

14

Procedure 41(b).

15

wishes to pursue this action, he may voluntarily dismiss it by

16

filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of

17

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).

18

for Plaintiff’s convenience.

Plaintiff is further advised that if he no longer

A form Notice of Dismissal is attached

19
20

DATED:

June 23, 2017

21
/S/___
_ ______
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25

THIS MEMORANDUM IS NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION, NOR IS IT INTENDED
TO BE INCLUDED IN OR SUBMITTED TO ANY ONLINE SERVICE SUCH AS WESTLAW
OR LEXIS.

26
27
28
14