an official capacity suit is treated as a suit against the 22 entity
How later courts described this case
- an official capacity suit is treated as a suit against the 22 entity
- “The State of California has not waived its Eleventh 26 Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought under § 1983 in federal court, and the Supreme Court has held that § 1983 was not 27 intended to abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION
8
9
KYLE MALBRUE, Case No. CV 20-5888-DOC (AS)
10
Plaintiff,
11
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
v.
12
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
JAMES MORALES, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16 INTRODUCTION
17
18 On June 25, 2020, Kyle Malbrue (“Plaintiff”), a California
19 inmate proceeding pro se, filed a Civil Rights Complaint
20 (“Complaint”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 1). The
21 Court has screened the Complaint as prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
22 and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. For the reasons discussed below, the Court
23
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.1
24
25
26
1 Magistrate judges may dismiss a complaint with leave to
27 amend without approval from the district judge. McKeever v. Block,
932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
28
1 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
2
3 Plaintiff claims that the following four Defendants, sued in
4 their individual and official capacities, violated Plaintiff’s
5 Eighth Amendment rights at California State Prison – Los Angeles
6 County (“CSP-LAC”) in Lancaster, California: (1) correctional
7 officer James Morales, (2) correctional officer Daniel Chavez-
8 Vasques, (3) correctional officer James Alvarado, and (4) licensed
9 psychiatric technician T. Lundgren. (Complaint at 3-6).2 He seeks
10 monetary relief. (Id. at 7).
11
12 Plaintiff alleges that on September 8, 2019, he was
13 approaching the medication window for his scheduled dose when
14 Officer Morales confronted him and began making “disrespectful
15 sexual comments.” (Id. at 5). Plaintiff and Morales started
16 arguing, which continued after Plaintiff took his medication.
17 (Id.). Plaintiff states that he then told Morales he “would be
18 making a complaint,” and started walking away. (Id.). At that
19 point, according to Plaintiff, Morales “charged” into Plaintiff
20 from behind, causing Plaintiff to hit his head on the concrete.
21 (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Morales began punching Plaintiff in
22 the face and head, and he sounded the institutional alarm,
23 summoning Officer Chavez-Vasquez and Officer Alvarado, who joined
24 in by punching and kicking Plaintiff. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges
25
26
27 2 Citations to the Complaint refer to the page numbers assigned
by the Court’s electronic case filing system (CM/ECF).
28
1 that the officers then grabbed his arms, handcuffed him, and
2 continued striking him. (Id.).
3
4 Plaintiff was sent to the hospital and treated for injuries
5 to his face, head, eye, and wrist. (Id. at 5-6). According to
6 Plaintiff, he later returned to the prison to find that the
7 officers, in an effort to “cover up” their own misconduct, had
8 falsely accused him of battery on the staff. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff
9 alleges that he was “also denied a[n] excessive force videotape
10 interview on the date of the incident,” and had to file an appeal
11 to obtain the interview. (Id.).
12
13 Plaintiff additionally alleges that Lundgren, a licensed
14 psychiatric technician, denied “medical treatment” to Plaintiff,
15 falsely claiming that Plaintiff had refused the treatment “by
16 writing ‘Naw, I’m good’” on a form. (Id.). Lundgren was then
17 overruled by a supervisor after Plaintiff continued to complain of
18 his injuries. (Id.).
19
20 STANDARD OF REVIEW
21
22 Congress mandates that district courts initially screen civil
23 complaints filed by prisoners seeking redress from a governmental
24 entity or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A court may dismiss such
25 a complaint, or any portion thereof, if the court concludes that
26 the complaint: (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a
27 claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary
28 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id.
1 § 1915A(b); see also id. § 1915(e)(2) (The court “shall dismiss
2 the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the
3 action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a
4 claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary
5 relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”);
6 accord Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000)
7 (en banc). In addition, dismissal may be appropriate if a complaint
8 violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. McHenry
9 v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996); Nevijel v. Northcoast
10 Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).
11
12 In considering whether to dismiss a complaint, a court is
13 generally limited to the pleadings and must construe “[a]ll factual
14 allegations set forth in the complaint . . . as true and . . . in
15 the light most favorable” to the plaintiff. Lee v. City of Los
16 Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
17 Moreover, pro se pleadings are “to be liberally construed” and
18 “held to less stringent standards” than those drafted by a lawyer.
19 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(citation omitted).
20 Nevertheless, dismissal for failure to state a claim can be
21 warranted based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or
22 the absence of factual support for a cognizable legal theory.
23 Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th
24 Cir. 2008).
25
26
27
28
1 DISCUSSION
2
3 Plaintiff’s Complaint warrants dismissal due to the
4 deficiencies discussed below. Leave to amend is granted, however,
5 because it is not “absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the
6 complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698
7 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012).
8
9 First, while Plaintiff purports to sue every Defendant in both
10 their individual and official capacities (Complaint at 3-4), he
11 fails to state any official-capacity claim. Official-capacity
12 suits provide “another way of pleading an action against an entity
13 of which an officer is an agent.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,
14 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978). Because Defendants are employed or
15 contracted by CDCR, claims against them in their official
16 capacities are effectively claims against the State of California.
17 Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985) (official-capacity
18 suits “generally represent only another way of pleading an action
19 against an entity of which an officer is an agent”); Community
20 House, Inc. v. City of Boise, Idaho, 623 F.3d 945, 966–67 (9th Cir.
21 2010) (an official capacity suit is treated as a suit against the
22 entity). To state a claim against a state officer in his or her
23 official capacity, Plaintiff must identify a custom, policy, or
24 practice of the state or prison that is responsible for the conduct
25 alleged in the Complaint.3 See Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118,
26
3 Even if the Complaint stated official-capacity claims, only
27 declaratory or injunctive relief would be available for such
claims. The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages against
28
1 1127 (9th Cir. 2001) (state prison administrators sued for
2 injunctive relief were “liable in their official capacities only
3 if policy or custom played a part in the violation of federal
4 law”); Tyson v. Ratelle, 166 F.R.D. 442, 446 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (“To
5 warrant injunctive relief under Section 1983, . . . there must be
6 an affirmative link or a causal relationship between the
7 constitutional deprivation and the adoption of a policy, express
8 or implied, showing the official’s authorization or approval of
9 the conduct leading to the constitutional deprivation.” (citing
10 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976))). Plaintiff fails to
11 allege any facts demonstrating that his harms resulted from any
12 policy, practice, or custom of the State of California or its
13 agencies.
14
15 Second, Plaintiff fails to state any claim against Defendant
16 Lundgren. Plaintiff claims Lundgren, a licensed psychiatric
17 technician, violated the Eighth Amendment through deliberate
18 indifference by denying “medical care” to Plaintiff, and falsely
19 claiming that Plaintiff had refused treatment. (Complaint at 6).
20 To establish an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, a
21 prisoner must show (1) that the deprivation suffered was
22 “objectively, sufficiently serious” (i.e., the objective
23 component), and (2) that prison officials were deliberately
24
states and their official arms. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356,
25 365 (1990); Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th
Cir. 2009) (“The State of California has not waived its Eleventh
26 Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought under § 1983 in
federal court, and the Supreme Court has held that § 1983 was not
27 intended to abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.”)
(citation omitted).
28
1 indifferent to his safety in allowing the deprivation to take place
2 (i.e., the subjective component). Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d
3 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). A plaintiff can satisfy the objective
4 component of the deliberate indifference standard by demonstrating
5 that a failure to treat the plaintiff’s condition could result in
6 further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction
7 of pain. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir.
8 2014). A plaintiff can satisfy the subjective component of the
9 deliberate indifference standard by showing that a prison official
10 “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and
11 safety.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004).
12 A jail official must “both be aware of facts from which the
13 inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
14 exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan,
15 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
16
17 Here, Plaintiff’s vague allegations against Lungren fail to
18 demonstrate either the objective or subjective components of the
19 claim. First, because Plaintiff does not specify what “medical
20 treatment” Lundgren refused to provide, or for what particular
21 injuries, he does not demonstrate any objectively serious harm.
22 Moreover, because Plaintiff states that Lundgren’s supervisor
23 “overruled” Lundgren’s decision, it is unclear whether any harm at
24 all resulted from Lundgren’s actions. (See Complaint at 6).
25 Second, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts showing that Lundgren
26 was actually aware of Plaintiff’s injuries and the need for
27 treatment. As such, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Lundgren
28
1 was deliberately indifferent in violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth
2 Amendment rights.
3
4 CONCLUSION
5
6 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DISMISSES
7 Plaintiff’s claims WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
8
9 If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he shall file
10 a First Amended Complaint no later than 30 days from the date of
11 this Order. The First Amended Complaint must cure the pleading
12 defects discussed above and shall be complete in itself without
13 reference to the Complaint. See L.R. 15-2 (“Every amended pleading
14 filed as a matter of right or allowed by order of the Court shall
15 be complete including exhibits. The amended pleading shall not
16 refer to the prior, superseding pleading.”). This means that
17 Plaintiff must allege and plead any viable claims in the Complaint
18 again.
19
20 In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should identify the nature
21 of each separate legal claim and confine his allegations to those
22 operative facts supporting each of his claims. For each separate
23 legal claim, Plaintiff should state the civil right that has been
24 violated and the supporting facts for that claim only. Pursuant
25 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), all that is required is a
26 “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
27 is entitled to relief.” However, Plaintiff is advised that the
28 allegations in the First Amended Complaint should be consistent
1 with the authorities discussed above. In addition, the First
2 Amended Complaint may not include new defendants or claims not
3 reasonably related to the allegations in the previously filed
4 complaint. Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to utilize the
5 standard civil rights complaint form when filing any amended
6 complaint, a copy of which is attached.
7
8 Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file
9 a First Amended Complaint, or failure to correct the deficiencies
10 described above, may result in a recommendation that this action,
11 or portions thereof, be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
12 prosecute and/or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R.
13 Civ. P. 41(b); Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d
14 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually
15 to respond to the court’s ultimatum - either by amending the
16 complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so -
17 is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”
18 (emphasis omitted; quoting Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d
19 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004))). Plaintiff is further advised that
20 if he no longer wishes to pursue this action in its entirety or
21 with respect to particular defendants or claims, he may voluntarily
22 dismiss all or any part of this action by filing a Notice of
23 Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24 41(a)(1). A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff’s
25 convenience.
26
27
28
1 IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3 Dated: August 11, 2020
______________/s/_____________
4 ALKA SAGAR
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28