Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anthony Young v. County of Los Angeles

August 2, 2011

ANTHONY YOUNG,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Suzanne H. Segal United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

I.

INTRODUCTION

On May 6, 2011, Anthony Young ("Plaintiff"), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, lodged a Civil Rights Complaint (the "Complaint") and filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis (the "IFP Request"). On May 12, 2011, this Court granted Plaintiff's IFP Request and deemed Plaintiff's Complaint filed with the Court. For the reasons stated below, the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

Congress mandates that district courts perform an initial screening of complaints in civil actions where a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). This Court may dismiss such a complaint, or any portions thereof, before service of process if it concludes that the complaint (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1-2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

II.

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that the following nine defendants violated his civil rights while performing their duties at the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Men's Central Jail and Twin Towers Correctional Facility: (1) County of Los Angeles (the "County"); (2) Sheriff Leroy D. Baca ("Sheriff Baca"); (3) custody assistant Alex Manning ("Officer Manning"); (4) psychiatric technician Diane Tiniakoff ("Ms. Tiniakoff"); (5) psychiatrist Dr. Weiss; (6) Sedgwick Claims Management Services ("Sedgwick"); (7) Sedgwick claims adjuster Greg Abramson ("Mr. Abramson"); (8) Deputy Yanez; and (9) Doe Defendants one through thirty ("Does") (collectively "Defendants"). (Complaint at 3-5). Plaintiff *fn1 sues all Defendants in their individual capacities and also sues the County and Sedgwick in their official capacities. (Id.). In addition, the Complaint attempts to raise causes of action against two defendants who are not listed in the form complaint, on the caption of the handwritten complaint, or in the accompanying summons: (10) Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department ("Sheriff's Department"); and (11) the Sheriff's Department Medical Division ("Medical Division"). (Id. at 3-5, 8, 48, 52) (collectively, the "unnamed Defendants"). The Complaint does not indicate whether Plaintiff is suing the Sheriff's Department and Medical Division in their individual or official capacities, or both.

Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action under both state and federal law. (See Complaint at 41-52). First, Plaintiff alleges that the County, Sheriff Baca, Officer Manning, Ms. Tiniakoff, Dr. Weiss, Deputy Yanez and Does 1-30 "denied Plaintiff medical care after numerous requests" knowing that their actions "were likely to cause Plaintiff [m]ental, emotional, psychological anguish and physical injury." (Id. at 41). Second, Plaintiff alleges that Officer Manning, the County, and Does 1-15 "knowingly used excessive force against Plaintiff" in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by "assaulting [and] beating [P]laintiff while [h]andcuffed until it rendered him unconscious causing serious bodily injuries and damages." (Id. at 42). In claims three, four and five, Plaintiff alleges that Officer Manning violated California Civil Code section 51.7 (id. at 44), California Penal Code sections 422.6(a) and 422.75 (id. at 44-45), and California Civil Code section 43 (id. at 45-46) by physically and verbally assaulting Plaintiff due to Plaintiff's sexual orientation. Sixth, Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Tiniakoff, Dr. Weiss, the County and Sheriff Baca subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by committing him to a "maximum security psychiatric unit without any clothing . . . for weeks in temperatures well under 65 [degrees]" in an attempt "to silence, discipline, humiliate and dehumanize [P]laintiff." (Id. at 46-47).

Seventh, Plaintiff alleges that unnamed Defendant Medical Division was negligent and deliberately indifferent to his medical needs during his psychiatric commitment by administering his "Anti-AIDS Retro-viral medications" "sparingly and inconsistently," which caused Plaintiff to develop "[r]esistance to his normal and [r]egularly [p]rescribed HIV Suppressant Medication Regimen." (Complaint at 49-50). Eighth, Plaintiff alleges that unnamed Defendant Sheriff's Department negligently "forced Plaintiff to enter into an unsupervised inmate holding cell with General Population inmates" despite Plaintiff's classification as a "homosexual" inmate, which resulted in Plaintiff being "assaulted, attacked and severely beaten unconscious by several inmate gang members." (Id. at 53).

Plaintiff seeks $7,500,00.00 in compensatory damages, $7,500,000.00 in exemplary damages, and $30,000,000.00 in punitive damages. (Complaint at 59). Plaintiff also asks for reasonable attorney fees and costs. (Id. at 58). Finally, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, asking for a "judicial declaration of the rights and duties of the respective parties" (id. at 57) and an order enjoining "Defendants from engaging in unlawful conduct complained of herein." (Id. at 56, 58).

III.

DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint due to defects in pleading. Pro se litigants in civil rights cases, however, must be given leave to amend their complaints unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1128-29; see also Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.