Joseph Patrick Roman Simon v. John McMahon et al
Filing
9
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Judge R. Gary Klausner, re Complaint (Prisoner Civil Rights), 1 . 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 this Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint. Although the Court does not necessarily deem insufficient all of Plaintiff's claims, the Court does require that any First Amended Complaint be complete in itself and not refer in any manner to any prior complaint. Failure to file timely a First Amended Complaint may result in the dismissal of this action. (dml)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
JOSEPH PATRICK ROMAN SIMON,
) NO. ED CV 16-2007-RGK(E)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
)
JOHN McMAHON, Sheriff,
) WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
17
18
19
For the following reasons, the Complaint is dismissed with leave
to amend.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
20
21
BACKGROUND
22
23
Plaintiff, an inmate at the West Valley Detention Center
24
(“WVDC”), filed this civil rights action on September 20, 2016,
25
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
26
San Bernardino; (2) San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon;
27
(3) WVDC Commander Jeff Rose; (4) WVDC Facility Commander Chris
28
Fisher; (5) Sheriff Sergeant J. Steer; (6) Deputy C. Zaragoza; and
Defendants are: (1) the County of
1
(7) fifty fictitious “John Doe” Defendants.1
2
individual Defendants in their individual and official capacities
3
(Complaint, p. 9, ¶ 19).
Plaintiff sues the
4
5
Also on September 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for
6
Extension of Time” to file exhibits to the Complaint, which the Court
7
granted on September 23, 2016.
8
Complaint on September 30, 2016.
9
and the exhibits together to constitute Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Plaintiff filed exhibits to the
The Court considers the Complaint
10
11
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
12
13
The Complaint contains four claims for relief pursuant to section
14
1983, styled “causes of action,” as well as general allegations of
15
conspiracy (see id., p. 17, ¶ 35).
16
however, identifies claims for: (1) violation of the First Amendment;
17
(2) violation of the Fourth Amendment; (3) violation of due process;
18
(4) violation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. section
19
15601 et seq.; (5) violation of equal protection; (6) conspiracy to
20
violate civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1985; (7) “neglect
21
to prevent civil rights violation” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1986;
22
(8) a violation of “the Bill of Rights”; and (9) a claim pursuant to
The title of the Complaint,
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
A plaintiff may name a fictitious defendant in his or
her complaint if the plaintiff does not know the true identity of
the defendant prior to the filing of the complaint. Wakefield v.
Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999). However,
Plaintiff should be aware that before the United States Marshal
can serve process on any fictitiously named Defendant, Plaintiff
must provide identifying information sufficient to permit the
service of process, such as the Defendant’s full name and
address.
2
1
the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1346 and section 2671
2
et seq. (“FTCA”) (Complaint, pp. 1-2).
3
action” do not necessarily correspond to the nine claims identified in
4
the title of the Complaint.
The four pleaded “causes of
5
6
In the First Cause of Action, Plaintiff alleges that, during a
7
cell search on or about December 22, 2015, Defendant Zaragoza
8
conducted a pat-down search of Plaintiff during which Zaragoza
9
allegedly fondled Plaintiff’s genitalia and left buttock (Complaint,
10
p. 10, ¶ 21).
Plaintiff allegedly informed Defendant Speer, who
11
assertedly did not want to speak to Plaintiff and “overlooked”
12
Defendant Zaragoza’s alleged misconduct (id.).
13
14
The Second Cause of Action alleges that, on or about December 24,
15
2015, Defendant Zaragoza and his partner “John Doe” retaliated against
16
Plaintiff for filing a grievance concerning the alleged sexual
17
fondling by assertedly confiscating Plaintiff’s property on the
18
allegedly false ground that Plaintiff was not a “pro-per” inmate (id.,
19
p. 11, ¶ 23).
20
21
The Third Cause of Action alleges that, on or about December 29,
22
2015, Defendant Zaragoza and his partner “John Doe” subjected
23
Plaintiff to excessive force by allegedly placing overly tight
24
handcuffs on Plaintiff and also assertedly retaliated against
25
Plaintiff by stealing Plaintiff’s property (id., pp. 13-14, ¶ 25).
26
27
28
The Fourth Cause of Action alleges that, on or about December 30,
2015, Defendant Zaragoza and two fictitious “John Doe” Defendants
3
1
retaliated against Plaintiff for filing a grievance by telling
2
Plaintiff to “roll up” his property to transfer Plaintiff to a
3
different housing location (id., pp. 15-16, ¶ 27).
4
assertedly was placed in the “hole” and charged with a disciplinary
5
violation, allegedly in retaliation for exercising his constitutional
6
right to file a complaint (id.).
7
was dismissed as untimely (id.).
Plaintiff then
The disciplinary charge allegedly
8
9
Plaintiff alleges that the County of San Bernardino failed to
10
train and supervise its officers and condoned and failed to correct
11
the alleged wrongdoing (id., p. 19, ¶ 38).
12
Rose allegedly were responsible for the actions of the subordinates,
13
failed to investigate the alleged wrongdoing and failed to discipline
14
to alleged offenders (id., pp. 19-20, ¶ 39).
15
declaratory relief, general damages in the sum of $5 million and
16
punitive damages in a like sum (id., p. 17, ¶¶ 29-30, pp. 22-23, ¶¶
17
46-49).
Defendants McMahon and
Plaintiff seeks
18
19
DISCUSSION
20
21
The Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendants McMahon
22
and Rose.
A supervisor is not liable under section 1983 on a theory
23
of respondeat superior.
24
(2009)
25
unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates on a theory of
26
respondeat superior”).
27
own misconduct,” and is not “accountable for the misdeeds of [his or
28
her] agents.”
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676
(“Government officials may not be held liable for the
A supervisor “is only liable for his or her
Id. at 677.
Mere knowledge of a subordinate’s alleged
4
1
misconduct is insufficient.
Id.
2
3
A supervisor may be held liable in his or her individual capacity
4
“for [his or her] own culpable action or inaction in the training,
5
supervision or control of [his or her] subordinates.”
6
of Oakland, Cal., 145 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Larez
7
v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646 (9th Cir. 1991)).
8
a claim against any individual defendant, a plaintiff must allege
9
facts showing that the individual defendant participated in or
Watkins v. City
To state
10
directed the alleged violation, or knew of the violation and failed to
11
act to prevent it.
12
Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999) (“A plaintiff must
13
allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was
14
personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.”).
15
Complaint alleges no facts, as distinguished from conclusions, showing
16
the personal involvement of Defendants McMahon or Rose in any of the
17
alleged wrongdoing.
See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th
The
18
19
To the extent Plaintiff purports to allege a claim for violation
20
of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. section 15601 et seq.,
21
any such claim is insufficient.
22
not create a private right of action.
23
App’x 231, 232-33 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 238 (2015);
24
Olive v. Harrington, 2016 WL 4899177, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14,
25
2016); Gonzalez v. Chriese, 2016 WL 3231284, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 13,
26
2016); Davis v. Riverside County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 2016 WL 1642558, at
27
*4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2016).
28
///
The Prison Rape Elimination Act does
5
See Krieg v. Steele, 599 Fed.
1
To the extent Plaintiff purports to allege a claim for conspiracy
2
to violate civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1985,
3
Plaintiff’s conclusory conspiracy allegations are insufficient.
4
Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 929-30 (9th Cir.
5
2004); see also Wisdom v. Katz, 539 Fed. App’x 704, 705 (9th Cir.
6
2013).
7
Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir.
8
1988) (“A claim can be stated under section 1986 only if the complaint
9
contains a valid claim under section 1985.”) (citation omitted).
For the same reason, any section 1986 claim also fails.
See
See
10
11
To the extent Plaintiff purports to assert an FTCA claim based on
12
alleged constitutional violations, the FTCA provides no remedy for
13
constitutional violations.
14
78 (1994).
15
suits against the United States regarding torts committed by federal
16
officials, not state officials.”
17
at *4 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2015); see Logue v. United States, 412 U.S.
18
521 (1973).
19
action.
See Lance v. United States, 70 F.3d 1093, 1095 (9th Cir.
20
1995).
Plaintiff does not sue any federal officials or allege any
21
claim against the United States.
See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477-
Furthermore, the FTCA generally “provides jurisdiction for
Miller v. Madigan, 2015 WL 7178431,
The United States is the only proper defendant in an FTCA
22
23
ORDER
24
25
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is dismissed with leave
26
to amend.
If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he is
27
granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Order within which to
28
file a First Amended Complaint.
Although the Court does not
6
1
necessarily deem insufficient all of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court
2
does require that any First Amended Complaint be complete in itself
3
and not refer in any manner to any prior complaint.
4
timely a First Amended Complaint may result in the dismissal of this
5
action.
6
2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 909 (2003) (court may dismiss action for
7
failure to follow court order); Simon v. Value Behavioral Health,
8
Inc., 208 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.), amended, 234 F.3d 428 (9th Cir.
9
2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1104 (2001), overruled on other grounds,
Failure to file
See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir.
10
Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 552
11
U.S. 985 (2007) (affirming dismissal without leave to amend where
12
plaintiff failed to correct deficiencies in complaint, where court had
13
afforded plaintiff opportunities to do so, and where court had given
14
plaintiff notice of the substantive problems with his claims); Plumeau
15
v. School District #40, County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 439 (9th Cir.
16
1997) (denial of leave to amend appropriate where further amendment
17
would be futile).
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
DATED: October 13, 2016
22
23
_____________________________________
R. GARY KLAUSNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
PRESENTED this 7th day
26
of October, 2016 by:
27
/S/
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28
7
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?