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.

Pryor v. Doe

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 20, 2015

DOMONICK PRYOR, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

KENLY KIYA KATO, Magistrate Judge.

This is a pro se civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Domonick Pryor. Following the Court's initial screening of the First Amended Complaint, the Court finds the First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against the sole defendant, John Doe, in his official capacity. The Court, therefore, orders the First Amended Complaint dismissed with leave to amend.

I.

BACKGROUND

On December 18, 2014, Plaintiff Domonick Pryor ("Plaintiff") filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Complaint"). The Complaint named two defendants: John Doe San Bernardino Sheriff's Deputy ("John Doe") and San Bernardino Sheriff's Department. ECF Docket ("Dkt.") 1. Following the Court's initial screening of the Complaint, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a municipal entity claim against San Bernardino Sheriff's Department.

On March 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Docket No. 9. The FAC only names defendant John Doe of the Barstow Police Department, who is sued in his official capacity. Id. at 3.

In the FAC, Plaintiff presents a summary version of the events alleged in the original Complaint.[1] Plaintiff alleges he was arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car by John Doe on September 4, 2013. Id. at 5. Plaintiff claims John Doe left him in the back of the patrol car "with the windows up with no a/c." Id . Plaintiff alleges he stated he "could not breathe due to the condition of the heat, " but was ignored. Id . Plaintiff further alleges he "suffered a minor heat stroke and passed-out." Id . Plaintiff was apparently taken to the Barstow Hospital where he was "revived" by Dr. John Stroh. Id.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court's screening of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) is governed by the following standards. A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim "where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory." Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). In considering whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all the factual allegations in it. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011). The court need not accept as true, however, "allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Shelton v. Chorley, 487 F.Appx. 388, 389 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding that district court properly dismissed claim when plaintiff's "conclusory allegations" did not support it).

Although a complaint need not include detailed factual allegations, it "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when it "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

III.

DISCUSSION

A. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT JOHN DOE IN ...


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.