(PS) Harris v. Placer County Jail
Filing
9
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 10/04/19 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed in its entirety without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RYAN A. HARRIS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:19-CV-1139-MCE-DMC
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PLACER COUNTY JAIL,
15
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the
17
18
court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 8). The court is required to screen
19
complaints brought by litigants who have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See
20
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under this screening provision, the court must dismiss a complaint or
21
portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can
22
be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
23
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24
12(h)(3), this court must dismiss an action if the court determines that it lacks subject matter
25
jurisdiction. Because plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court will
26
screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), the court will also
27
consider as a threshold matter whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction.
28
///
1
1
I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
2
As with the original complaint, plaintiff names the Placer County Jail as the only
3
defendant. See ECF No. 8, pg. 2. According to plaintiff, correctional staff at the Placer County
4
Jail denied him adequate medical treatment and subjected him to excessive force. See id. at 5-7.
5
For relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $500,000.00. See id. at 7.
6
Alternatively, he seeks an order that “all officers involved are terminated.” Id. The first amended
7
complaint does not contain any allegations specific to defendant Placer County Jail.
8
9
10
II. DISCUSSION
The only named defendant – the Placer County Jail – is a municipal entity.
11
Municipalities and other local government units are among those “persons” to whom § 1983
12
liability applies. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Counties and
13
municipal government officials are also “persons” for purposes of § 1983. See id. at 691; see also
14
Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989). A local government
15
unit, however, may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees or officials under a
16
respondeat superior theory of liability. See Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403
17
(1997). Thus, municipal liability must rest on the actions of the municipality, and not of the
18
actions of its employees or officers. See id. To assert municipal liability, therefore, the plaintiff
19
must allege that the constitutional deprivation complained of resulted from a policy or custom of
20
the municipality. See id. A claim of municipal liability under § 1983 is sufficient to withstand
21
dismissal even if it is based on nothing more than bare allegations that an individual defendant’s
22
conduct conformed to official policy, custom, or practice. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles
23
Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 1988).
24
In this case, plaintiff has not alleged any custom or policy of defendant Placer
25
County Jail. For this reason, plaintiff’s first amended complaint does not raise any cognizable
26
claims as currently pleaded and must be dismissed. The court observes this same defect
27
prevented service of plaintiff’s original complaint. Despite the court advising plaintiff of the
28
pleading defect and providing him with the appropriate legal standards for pleading a claim
2
1
against a municipal defendant, plaintiff makes no effort in the first amended complaint to correct
2
the pleading defect.
3
4
5
6
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed
in its entirely without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim.
7
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
8
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
9
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections
10
with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections.
11
Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v.
12
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
14
Dated: October 4, 2019
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?