Martin Daniel Weekley v. Orange County Sheriffs Department et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Judge Otis D. Wright, II, 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 in conformity with this Order. See Order for details. (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

MARTIN DANIEL WEEKLEY,

) NO. SA CV 17-1337-ODW(E)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
)
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
) WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

17
18
19

For the reasons discussed below, the Complaint is dismissed with
leave to amend.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(2).

20
21

BACKGROUND

22
23

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this civil rights action

24

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against the Orange County Sheriff’s

25

Department and Deputy Sheriff Gotts, whom Plaintiff designates as

26

“Defendant #1” and “Defendant #2,” respectively.

27

Defendant Gotts in his individual and official capacities.

28

Plaintiff’s claims arise out of alleged events in August and September

Plaintiff sues

1

of 2016 when Plaintiff assertedly was incarcerated at the Orange

2

County Jail.1

3
4

The Complaint contains two claims for relief.

In Claim I,

5

Plaintiff alleges that, after Plaintiff and another inmate assertedly

6

engaged in a brief altercation, Defendant Gotts allegedly responded to

7

the scene (Complaint, p. “5 of 6”).

8

arrived, Plaintiff assertedly was “proned out” on the floor (id.).

9

Plaintiff allegedly never resisted or made any attempt to move (id.,

By the time Gotts allegedly

10

p. “5 of 6(B)”).

Gotts allegedly jumped on Plaintiff’s back with a

11

knee, assertedly driving Plaintiff’s head into the stairwell with

12

extreme force (id., p. “5 of 6”).

13

few inches off the ground and drove Plaintiff into the concrete

14

staircase head first while assertedly dropping Gotts’ knees into

15

Plaintiff’s back, allegedly causing Plaintiff to suffer multiple

16

facial and head lacerations (id.).

17

longer see due to the blood assertedly running into his eyes (id.).

18

Gotts allegedly handcuffed Plaintiff and dragged Plaintiff down the

19

escalator to the Medical Ward (id., p. “5 of 6(B)”).

20

allegedly was taken to the hospital were he assertedly was treated for

21

head and facial lacerations and a concussion and kept under

22

observation for two days (id.).

23

his left eye and still experiences headaches (id.).

24

contends Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be

25

free from excessive force.

26

///

Gotts allegedly lifted Plaintiff a

Plaintiff allegedly could no

Plaintiff

Plaintiff allegedly lost vision in
Plaintiff

27
1

28

It is unclear whether Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee
or a convicted prisoner at the time of the alleged wrongdoing.
2

1

In Claim II, Plaintiff alleges that unidentified deputies denied

2

Plaintiff grievance forms and threatened to retaliate against

3

Plaintiff for filing grievances (id., p. “5 of 6(C)”).

4

alleges that, upon Plaintiff’s return from the hospital, unidentified

5

deputies assertedly disregarded a “known danger sign” and placed

6

Plaintiff in “regular non-medical housing” while ignoring Plaintiff’s

7

medical complaints and concerns, which allegedly caused Plaintiff to

8

fall unconscious and go “Man Down” (id.).

Plaintiff also

9
10

Plaintiff further alleges that the County (“Defendant #1”) also

11

committed the previously described asserted excessive force and

12

allegedly returned Plaintiff from the hospital to Plaintiff’s “same

13

housing unit” which assertedly was “unsupervised by medical staff”

14

(id., p. “5 of 6(D)”).

15

Plaintiff assertedly was taken to a medical facility (id.).

16

later, Plaintiff allegedly attempted to file a grievance claiming

17

excessive force and inadequate medical care but the grievance “went

18

unanswered” (id.).

19

grievance forms multiple times, and unidentified staff assertedly told

20

Plaintiff that Plaintiff would “get on[e] later, or on ‘next week’”

21

(id.).

22

were no grievance forms on Plaintiff’s housing unit (id.).

23

Unidentified staff allegedly told Plaintiff that Plaintiff did “not

24

want to file a grievance because ‘we will fuck you up if you do’”

25

(id.).

After Plaintiff allegedly went “man down,”
Two days

Plaintiff allegedly asked “Defendant #1” for

Plaintiff allegedly never received a grievance form and there

Plaintiff purportedly was scared for his life (id.).

26
27
28

The County (“Defendant #1”) allegedly failed to train its
officers properly concerning the use of force, grievance procedures,
3

1

proscription against retaliation and the provision of medical care to

2

inmates (id.).

3
4

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the sum of

5

$2.5 million from Defendant Gotts and compensatory and punitive

6

damages in the sum of $5 million from the County (id., p. “6 of 6").

7
8

DISCUSSION

9
10

The Court must construe Plaintiff’s section 1983 official

11

capacity claims against Defendant Gotts as claims against the County.

12

See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985).

13

not sue the County for alleged constitutional violations on a theory

14

of respondeat superior, which is not a theory of liability cognizable

15

under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

16

60-61 (2011); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009); Polk County

17

v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Castro v. County of Los Angeles,

18

833 F.3d 1060, 1073 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. denied, 137 S.

19

Ct. 831 (2017).

20

wrongdoing was committed pursuant to a municipal policy, custom or

21

usage.

22

Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 402-04 (1997); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,

23

436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (“Monell”).

24

liability on a municipality under Monell must allege facts showing

25

that:

26

governmental policy or a longstanding practice or custom; (2) the

27

individual who committed the constitutional violation was an official

28

with final policy-making authority; or (3) an official with final

Plaintiff may

See Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51,

The County may be held liable only if the alleged

See Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County, Oklahoma v.

A plaintiff seeking to impose

(1) the constitutional violation was the result of a

4

1

policy-making authority ratified the unconstitutional act.

Gillette

2

v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346-47 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510

3

U.S. 932 (1993).

4
5

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations do not suffice to plead a

6

municipal liability claim against the County under these standards.

7

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (plaintiff must allege more

8

than an “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”; a

9

pleading that “offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation

10

of the elements of a cause of action will not do”); Starr v. Baca, 652

11

F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct.

12

2101 (2012) (“allegations in a complaint or counterclaim may not

13

simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain

14

sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to

15

enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively”).

16

Additionally, liability under Monell may not be predicated on

17

“isolated or sporadic incidents,” but “must be founded upon practices

18

of sufficient duration, frequency and consistency that the conduct has

19

become a traditional method of carrying out policy.”

20

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

21

not contain sufficient factual allegations to plead a cognizable

22

Monell claim.

Gant v. County
The Complaint does

23
24

Additionally, Plaintiff's general and conclusory allegations that

25

unidentified staff assertedly engaged in various acts of wrongdoing,

26

including alleged denial of medical care, retaliation and interference

27

with the grievance process, are insufficient.

28

84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (complaint is subject to dismissal
5

See McHenry v. Renne,

1

for failure to state a claim if “one cannot determine from the

2

complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory”);

3

see also E.D.C. Technologies, Inc. v. Seidel, 2016 WL 4549132, at *9

4

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016) (“Courts consistently conclude that

5

undifferentiated pleading against multiple defendants is improper”)

6

(citations, internal brackets and quotations omitted); Chevalier v.

7

Ray and Joan Kroc Corps. Cmty. Ctr., 2012 WL 2088819, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

8

June 8, 2012) (complaint that failed to “identify which wrongs were

9

committed by which Defendant” insufficient); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

10
11

Finally, Plaintiff may not recover punitive damages against a

12

governmental entity or an individual governmental officer sued in his

13

or her official capacity.

14

453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981); Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 167 F.3d

15

514, 524 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1003 (1999).

See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc.,

16
17

ORDER

18
19

The Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

If Plaintiff

20

still wishes to pursue this action, he is granted thirty (30) days

21

from the date of this Order within which to file a First Amended

22

Complaint in conformity with this Order.

23

necessarily deem insufficient all of Plaintiff’s allegations, the

24

Court does require that any First Amended Complaint be complete in

25

itself and not refer in any manner to the prior Complaint.

26

may not add Defendants without leave of court.

27

21.

28

with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action.

While the Court does not

Plaintiff

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

Failure to file a timely First Amended Complaint in conformity

6

See

1

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002), cert.

2

denied, 538 U.S. 909 (2003) (court may dismiss action for failure to

3

follow court order); Simon v. Value Behavioral Health, Inc., 208 F.3d

4

1073, 1084 (9th Cir.), amended, 234 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2000), cert.

5

denied, 531 U.S. 1104 (2001), overruled on other grounds, Odom v.

6

Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 985

7

(2007) (affirming dismissal without leave to amend where plaintiff

8

failed to correct deficiencies in complaint, where court had afforded

9

plaintiff opportunities to do so, and where court had given plaintiff

10

notice of the substantive problems with his claims); Plumeau v. School

11

District #40, County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 439 (9th Cir. 1997)

12

(denial of leave to amend appropriate where further amendment would be

13

futile).

14
15

DATED: October 2, 2017.

16
17
18

__________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21

PRESENTED this 28th day of

22

September, 2017, by:

23
24
25

/s/
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
7