# (PC) Lovell v. East Oakland Police Department

> District Court, N.D. California · October 18, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076791

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** October 18, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076791

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DAVID ANTHONY LOVELL, Case No. 23-cv-01451-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff,
12

v.
13 ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT

14 EAST OAKLAND POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
15
Defendants.

16
17 INTRODUCTION
18 Plaintiff David Anthony Lovell III alleges defendants violated his Eighth
19 Amendment rights by being deliberate indifferent to his serious medical needs. His
20 complaint containing these allegations is now before me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
21 § 1915A(a).
22 Lovell has stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against some defendants,
23 but not others. His Eighth Amendment allegations against correctional staff are viable, but
24 his allegation that a false report was filed is not sufficient to state a claim for relief. Also,
25 his claims against a doctor are conclusory and require further factual detail. Unless Lovell
26 files an amended complaint on or before December 1, 2023, I will order service of the
27 current complaint on the viable claims only.
1
2 DISCUSSION
3 A. Standard of Review
4 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a
5 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
6 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any
7 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
8 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
9 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
10 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
11 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
12 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
13 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
14 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
15 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
16 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal
17 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably
18 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55
19 (9th Cir. 1994).
20 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
21 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
22 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
23 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
24 B. Legal Claims
25 Lovell alleges that on May 13, 2022 he was deprived of medical care after being
26 stabbed in the head. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) He alleges that (i) East Oakland Police
27 Department Officers Lara and Tellez urged medical staff at Highland Hospital to “not
1 filed a false disciplinary report and claimed Lovell had no injuries; (iii) Officers Iniguez
2 and Arzate kept him handcuffed even though his arms were going numb; (iv) and Dr.
3 Cooper failed to provide adequate medical care. (Id. at 4.) He also names as defendants
4 the East Oakland Police Department, Highland Hospital, Alameda County, Alameda
5 Sheriff, and Wellpath Medical Corporation. (Id. at 2.)
6 When liberally construed, Lovell has stated Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate
7 indifference to his serious medical needs against Lara, Tellez, Iniguez and Arzate. If he
8 files an amended complaint, Lovell may simply repeat his allegations against these
9 persons. However, the other allegations are not sufficient and are DISMISSED.
10 Cordoza’s filing of a false report by itself does not state a claim under § 1983. Hanrahan
11 v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140-41 (7th Cir. 1984) (as long as a prisoner is afforded
12 procedural due process in the disciplinary hearing, allegations of a fabricated charge fail to
13 state a claim under § 1983). However, if Lovell can allege facts that he was deprived of
14 procedural due process in the disciplinary hearing, he may be able to state a claim for
15 relief.
16 Lovell’s claims against Dr. Cooper require more detail to proceed. His allegations
17 state only that Cooper is liable for “deliberately not giving me medical attention to save
18 Wellpath monies.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) The federal pleading standard “demands
19 more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556
20 U.S. at 678. “A person deprives another ‘of a constitutional right, within the meaning of
21 section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or
22 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of
23 which [the plaintiff complains].’” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988)
24 (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). The inquiry into causation
25 must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual
26 defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation.
27 Id. If he files an amended complaint, Lovell must state what care he required and what
1 Because his allegations do not connect the actions of the above individuals to any
2 institution or government agency, his claims against East Oakland Police Department,
3 Highland Hospital, Alameda County, the Alameda Sheriff, and Wellpath Medical
4 Corporation are DISMISSED. Local governments are “persons” subject to liability under
5 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where official policy or custom causes a constitutional tort, see Monell v.
6 Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978), but a municipality may not be held
7 vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under the theory of
8 respondeat superior. See Board of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997);
9 Monell, 436 U.S. at 691. To impose municipal liability under § 1983 for a violation of
10 constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional
11 right of which he or she was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that the
12 policy amounted to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (4)
13 that the policy was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. See Plumeau v.
14 School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). Also, there is no
15 respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.
16 1989). It is not enough that the supervisor merely has a supervisory relationship over the
17 defendants; the plaintiff must show that the supervisor “participated in or directed the
18 violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Id.
19 CONCLUSION
20 Unless Lovell files an amended complaint on or before December 1, 2023, I will
21 order service of the viable claims contain in the current complaint. An amended complaint
22 must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (23-01451 WHO (PR))
23 and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT must be written on the first page. An
24 amended complaint must also appear on this Court’s form, a copy of which will be sent to
25 Lovell. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints,
26 plaintiff must include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present
27 and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262
1 || Lovell does not file an amended complaint by December 1, 2023, I will order service of his
2 || Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims
3 against Lara, Tellez, Iniguez, and Arzate.
4 IT ISSO ORDERED.
5 Dated: October 18, 2023 .
6
M H. ORRI
7 United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
qa 12

©
15
16

Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076791. Public record. Not legal advice.