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.

Victor Sanchez v. Industry Sheriff

October 3, 2011

VICTOR SANCHEZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
INDUSTRY SHERIFF, ET AL, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margaret A. Nagle United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a detainee in the Los Angeles County Jail ("Jail"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on August 29, 2011 ("Complaint").*fn1

Congress has mandated that courts perform an initial screening of civil rights actions brought by prisoners with respect to prison conditions and/or that seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. The Court "shall" dismiss a prisoner civil rights action if the Court concludes that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks relief against a defendant who is immune from suit.

8 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). In screening such a complaint, the Court must construe the allegations of the complaint liberally and must afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Id.; Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

The sole defendant is Deputy Sheriff Rodriguez of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Badge Number. 456360. (Complaint at 1.) Plaintiff sues Deputy Rodriguez in his individual and official capacities. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that, on May 5, 2011, Deputy Rodriguez and Deputy Vargas hit him with their patrol car. (Complaint at 3, 5.) The two deputies lied about doing so in their police report, and Deputy Rodriguez gave false testimony about the incident in court. (Id. at 5.) Deputies Rodriguez and Vargas did not take plaintiff to the hospital. (Id.) Hours later, other deputies took him to the hospital, where he received an MRI and a CAT. (Id.) He suffered injuries to his neck, back, and left knee, as well as nerve damage. (Id. at 6.)

Plaintiff asserts claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Complaint at 5.) He seeks damages in the amount of $6,650,332.50. (Id. at 6.)

DISCUSSION

I. PLAINTIFF MUST NAME DEPUTY RODRIGUEZ IN THE CAPTION.

Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the name of each defendant to be included in the caption of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1992); Local Rule 11-3.8. Currently, the caption of the Complaint gives the defendant as "Indistry [sic] Sherriff [sic]." If plaintiff files a First Amended Complaint against Deputy Rodriguez, he must include his name in the caption.

II. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY CLAIM AGAINST DEPUTY RODRIGUEZ.

Plaintiff asserts claims under the Cruel and Unusual Clause of the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment based on allegations that defendant: (1) struck plaintiff with defendant's patrol car; (2) lied about it in his police report and on the stand; and (3) did not drive ...


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.