(PC) Jones v. Cooper ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PHILIP JOHN JONES, No. 2:23-CV-0817-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JIM COOPER, and 15 Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. See ECF 19 No. 12. 20 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 21 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 23 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 24 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 25 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 26 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 27 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 28 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 1 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 2 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege 3 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 4 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 5 impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 6 and conclusory. 7 8 I. BACKGROUND 9 A. Procedural History 10 Plaintiff initiated this action with a pro se complaint filed on May 1, 2023. See 11 ECF No. 1. In the original complaint, Plaintiff named as defendants Jim Cooper and “John 12 Doe/Classification.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint as of right on June 2, 13 2023. See ECF No. 8. In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff named as defendants Sacramento 14 County and “John Does 1-15.” Id. at 1. On January 23, 2024, the Court issued an order 15 dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. See ECF No. 9. Specifically, the Court 16 determined that Plaintiff had failed to allege facts to establish the municipal liability of the only 17 named defendant – Sacramento County. See id. Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on 18 April 1, 2024. See ECF No. 12. 19 B. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 20 In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff now names Sacramento County as the 21 only defendant. See id. at 1, 2. Plaintiff claims that, on May 17, 2021, while housed at the Rio 22 Cosumnes Correctional Center, he was attacked from behind by another inmate. See id. at 3. 23 Plaintiff alleges this occurred due to the deliberate indifference and negligence of Sacramento 24 County sheriff’s deputies. See id. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 As with the first amended complaint, the Court finds that the second amended 3 complaint fails to allege any facts to establish the liability of Defendant Sacramento County. 4 Municipalities and other local government units are among those “persons” to 5 whom § 1983 liability applies. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). 6 Counties and municipal government officials are also “persons” for purposes of § 1983. See id. 7 at 691; see also Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989). A local 8 government unit, however, may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees or officials 9 under a respondeat superior theory of liability. See Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 10 397, 403 (1997). Thus, municipal liability must rest on the actions of the municipality, and not of 11 the actions of its employees or officers. See id. To assert municipal liability, therefore, the 12 plaintiff must allege that the constitutional deprivation complained of resulted from a policy or 13 custom of the municipality. See id. 14 Here, Plaintiff has not alleged facts indicating the existence or implementation of 15 any custom or policy of Sacramento County which resulted in a violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth 16 Amendment rights by sheriff’s deputies. To the contrary, Plaintiff alleges that the violations 17 occurred due to the deliberate indifference of individual deputies, not the policies of Sacramento 18 County. Absent allegations of a municipal custom or policy, Plaintiff’s claim cannot survive. 19 Given that Plaintiff has previously been advised of the standards for pleading a claim against a 20 municipal defendant and has still failed to allege sufficient facts, the Court finds that further 21 amendment would be futile. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Il. CONCLUSION 2 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 3 || cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 4 | the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 5 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned orders and recommends as follows: 6 1. It is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a 7 || District Judge to this case. 8 2. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice for 9 || failure to state a claim. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 11 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 12 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 13 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 14 | objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 15 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 | Dated: May 21, 2024 Co 18 DENNIS M. COTA 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28