Harris v. Placer County ( 2019 )

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, No. 2:19-CV-1139-MCE-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PLACER COUNTY JAIL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 18 court is plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1). 19 The court is required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been 20 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under this screening 21 provision, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; 22 (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a 23 defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B). Moreover, 24 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), this court must dismiss an action if the court 25 determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because plaintiff has been granted leave to 26 proceed in forma pauperis, the court will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant 27 to Rule 12(h)(3), the court will also consider as a threshold matter whether it has subject-matter 28 jurisdiction. 1 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 2 Plaintiff names the Placer County Jail as the only defendant. See ECF No. 1, pg. 3 2. According to plaintiff: 4 Sgt. Gray said all my accusations were not on camera & he did not believe me. I can only state what was on camera. Officers carried me for no 5 reason, bruising my body. Officers refused to give me my medication, resulting in me vomiting blood. I was then punished for vomiting blood & 6 still denied a dr. 7 Id. at 5. 8 For relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $500,000.00. See id. at 6. 9 Alternatively, he seeks an order that “all officers involved are terminated.” Id. The complaint 10 does not contain any allegations specific to defendant Placer County Jail. 11 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 The only named defendant – the Placer County Jail – is a municipal entity. 14 Municipalities and other local government units are among those “persons” to whom § 1983 15 liability applies. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Counties and 16 municipal government officials are also “persons” for purposes of § 1983. See id. at 691; see also 17 Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989). A local government 18 unit, however, may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees or officials under a 19 respondeat superior theory of liability. See Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 20 (1997). Thus, municipal liability must rest on the actions of the municipality, and not of the 21 actions of its employees or officers. See id. To assert municipal liability, therefore, the plaintiff 22 must allege that the constitutional deprivation complained of resulted from a policy or custom of 23 the municipality. See id. A claim of municipal liability under § 1983 is sufficient to withstand 24 dismissal even if it is based on nothing more than bare allegations that an individual defendant’s 25 conduct conformed to official policy, custom, or practice. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles 26 Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 1988). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 In this case, plaintiff has not alleged any custom or policy of defendant Placer 2 County Jail. For this reason, plaintiff’s complaint does not raise any cognizable claims as 3 currently pleaded and must be dismissed. 4 5 III. CONCLUSION 6 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by 7 amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire 8 action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is 9 informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See 10 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to 11 amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended 12 complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if 13 plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make 14 plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be 15 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 16 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the 17 conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See 18 Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how 19 each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection 20 between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 21 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 22 Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the 23 time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 24 1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply 25 with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). 26 See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and 3 2. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of 4 | service of this order. 5 6 7 | Dated: August 2, 2019 Ssvcqo_ 8 DENNIS M. COTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28