Jack Robert Smith v. Patton State Hospital

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato, re Complaint ( Civil Rights) 1 . (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS) (Attachments: # 1 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM, # 2 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL) (dts)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

Case No. EDCV 17-1594-JFW (KK)

JACK ROBERT SMITH,

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

PATTON STATE HOSPITAL,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17

I.

18

INTRODUCTION

19

Plaintiff Jack Robert Smith (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis, has filed a civil rights complaint (“Complaint”) alleging Defendant

21

Patton State Hospital (“Defendant”) violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights

22

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). For the reasons discussed below, the

23

Court dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

1

II.

2

BACKGROUND

3

On July 27, 2017, Plaintiff constructively filed1 a civil rights complaint

4

alleging Defendant violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to substantive due

5

process and to be free from “cruel and unusual punishment [and] torture.” ECF

6

Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1 at 4.
Plaintiff alleges he is hospitalized at Patton State Hospital “for no reason.”

7
8

Id. at 6. Plaintiff claims he is “not in need of treatment,” he “do[es] not take

9

medication,” he is “not mentally ill & not dangerous.” Id. According to Plaintiff,

10

his doctors have recommended that Plaintiff “be unconditionally released out of

11

the hospital straight home because [Plaintiff’s] hospitalization is unjustifiable,

12

unnecessary & cruel.” Id. Plaintiff alleges Harry Oreol and Kayla Fisher, directors

13

of Patton State Hospital, “have been notified of [Plaintiff’s] doctors’

14

recommendation & are aware of the unnecessary cruel conditions of [his]

15

confinement but because of the hospital’s policies they refuse to do anything about

16

it.” Id.
Plaintiff claims his confinement is “unnecessary, unjustifiable, oppressive,

17
18

dangerous & cruel.” Id. He alleges his “health & safety is in danger” because he is

19

“forced to live with dangerous severely mentally ill patients that are heavily

20

medicated, unsanitary, mean, disrespectful, aggravating & have committed

21

murders & other horrendous violent crimes.” Id. Plaintiff claims he is “living in

22
23
24
25
26
27

Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se inmate gives prison authorities a
pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on
the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010)
(citation omitted); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating
the “mailbox rule applies to § 1983 suits filed by pro se prisoners”); Williamson v.
Flavan, No. CV 08-3635-R (JEM), 2009 WL 3066642, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21,
2009) (applying “mailbox rule” to civilly committed individuals as well).
1

28
2

1

fear deprived of [his] life & liberty, suffering endless amounts of frustration, stress

2

& uncertainty.” Id.
Plaintiff seeks $250,000,000 in monetary and punitive damages, as well as

3
4

“unconditional release from Patton State Hospital and the mental health system.”

5

Id. at 5.

6

III.

7

STANDARD OF REVIEW

8

As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must screen the

9

Complaint and is required to dismiss the case at any time if it concludes the action

10

is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or

11

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

12

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.

13

1998).

14

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim for screening

15

purposes, the Court applies the same pleading standard from Rule 8 of the Federal

16

Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 8”) as it would when evaluating a motion to

17

dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Watison v. Carter,

18

668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain a

19

“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

20

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

21

A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim “where there is no

22

cognizable legal theory or an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a

23

cognizable legal theory.” Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2007)

24

(citation omitted). In considering whether a complaint states a claim, a court must

25

accept as true all of the material factual allegations in it. Hamilton v. Brown, 630

26

F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011). However, the court need not accept as true

27

“allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or

28

unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th
3

1

Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Although a complaint need not include detailed

2

factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

3

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d

4

1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct.

5

1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)). A claim is facially plausible when it “allows the

6

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

7

misconduct alleged.” Cook, 637 F.3d at 1004 (citation omitted).
“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint,

8
9

however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal

10

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 889-90 (9th Cir.

11

2008) (citation omitted). “[W]e have an obligation where the p[laintiff] is pro se,

12

particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the

13

p[laintiff] the benefit of any doubt.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir.

14

2012) (citation omitted).
If the court finds the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a

15
16

claim, the court has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Lopez v.

17

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Leave to amend should be granted

18

if it appears possible the defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if

19

the plaintiff is pro se. Id. at 1130-31; see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,

20

1106 (9th Cir. 1995). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear a complaint

21

cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend.

22

Cato, 70 F.3d at 1107-11; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th

23

Cir. 2009).

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
4

1

IV.

2

DISCUSSION

3

A.

PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM CHALLENGING HIS

4

COMMITMENT TO PATTON STATE HOSPITAL

5

(1)

6

Under section 1026.2 of the California Penal Code, a person found not guilty

7

by reason of insanity may apply for release upon the ground that his sanity has been

8

restored. Cal. Pen. Code § 1026.2. Either the insanity acquittee or the medical

9

director of the state hospital or other treatment facility to which the acquittee is

10

committed may apply for release. §1026 (a) and (d). The remedy for a plaintiff

11

challenging his civil commitment or denial of release is through a petition for writ

12

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

13

475, 500, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973). A civil rights action under

14

Section 1983 is proper for challenging conditions of confinement only. Id. at 498-

15

99.

APPLICABLE LAW

16

(2)

ANALYSIS

17

Here, to the extent Plaintiff is challenging his continued civil confinement by

18

alleging he is not mentally ill, and therefore eligible to be released, the proper

19

remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after he

20

exhausts state judicial remedies. Plaintiff may not challenge his continued

21

commitment through a Section 1983 complaint. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff is

22

challenging his commitment, the claim must be dismissed.

23

B.

THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT BARS CLAIMS AGAINST

24

DEFENDANT

25

(1)

26

“The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits

APPLICABLE LAW

27

brought against an unconsenting state.” Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec.

28

Co-op., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Pennhurst State School & Hosp.
5

1

v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S. Ct. 900, 79 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1984)). This

2

jurisdictional bar includes “suits naming state agencies and departments as

3

defendants,” and it applies whether plaintiffs “seek damages or injunctive relief.”

4

Id.; Pennhurst State School, 465 U.S. at 102. “[A]n entity with Eleventh

5

Amendment immunity is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.” Howlett

6

By & Through Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365, 110 S. Ct. 2430, 110 L. Ed. 2d

7

332 (1990).

8

(2)

ANALYSIS

9

Here, the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff from raising any claim against

10

Defendant Patton State Hospital. See Shaw v. State of California Dep’t of

11

Alcoholic Beverage Control, 788 F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[T]he Eleventh

12

Amendment has been held to bar suits against a state brought by its own citizens,

13

whether the relief sought is money damages or an injunction.”); Jeffrey v. St. Clair,

14

933 F. Supp. 963, 971 (D. Haw. 1996) (holding claims against employees of state

15

hospital were barred by the Eleventh Amendment). As the state of California has

16

not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, Plaintiff’s claims must be

17

dismissed.

18

V.

19

LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

20

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is subject to dismissal. As the

21

Court is unable to determine whether amendment would be futile, leave to amend

22

is granted. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per

23

curiam).

24
25
26
27

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT within twenty-one (21) days of the
service date of this Order, Plaintiff choose one of the following two options:
1.

Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint to attempt to cure the

deficiencies discussed above. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a

28
6

1

blank Central District civil rights complaint form to use for filing the First

2

Amended Complaint, which the Court encourages Plaintiff to use.

3

If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must clearly

4

designate on the face of the document that it is the “First Amended Complaint,” it

5

must bear the docket number assigned to this case, and it must be retyped or

6

rewritten in its entirety, preferably on the court-approved form. Plaintiff shall not

7

include new defendants or new allegations that are not reasonably related to the

8

claims asserted in the Complaint. In addition, the First Amended Complaint must

9

be complete without reference to the Complaint or any other pleading, attachment,

10
11

or document.
An amended complaint supersedes the preceding complaint. Ferdik v.

12

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). After amendment, the Court will

13

treat all preceding complaints as nonexistent. Id. Because the Court grants

14

Plaintiff leave to amend as to all his claims raised here, any claim raised in a

15

preceding complaint is waived if it is not raised again in the First Amended

16

Complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012).

17

The Court advises Plaintiff that it generally will not be well-disposed toward

18

another dismissal with leave to amend if Plaintiff files a First Amended Complaint

19

that continues to include claims on which relief cannot be granted. “[A] district

20

court’s discretion over amendments is especially broad ‘where the court has

21

already given a plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend his complaint.’”

22

Ismail v. County of Orange, 917 F. Supp.2d 1060, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (citations

23

omitted); see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261. Thus, if Plaintiff files a First

24

Amended Complaint with claims on which relief cannot be granted, the First

25

Amended Complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend and with

26

prejudice.

27
28

Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file a First
Amended Complaint will result in this action being dismissed with prejudice
7

1

for failure to state a claim, prosecute and/or obey Court orders pursuant to

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

3

2.

Alternatively, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the action without

4

prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The Clerk of Court

5

is directed to mail Plaintiff a blank Notice of Dismissal Form, which the Court

6

encourages Plaintiff to use.

7
8
9
10
11

Dated: August 11, 2017
HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8