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.

Taylor v. Boyd

United States District Court, C.D. California

February 22, 2017

KEVIN TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
KELLY BOYD, ET AL., Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

          HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO United States Magistrate Judge

         I.

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Kevin Taylor (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a Complaint (“Complaint”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) alleging violations of his First, Eighth, Eleventh, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff is suing defendants Kelly Boyd, in both his official and individual capacity, and RMI International (“Defendants”). As discussed below, the Court dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim.

         II.

         ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT

         On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff, who is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at the Wasco State Prison, constructively filed[1] the Complaint pursuant to Section 1983, against defendants RMI International and Kelly Boyd. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1, Compl. Plaintiff's claims appear to arise form an incident that occurred on private property by a private actor. According to the Complaint, defendant RMI International, a private security company, is responsible for security at Watts Towers, a private property in Watts, California. Id. at 1. Defendant Boyd, an employee of RMI International, was responsible for security at Watts Towers on the day of the alleged incident. Id.

         On October 7, 2016, defendant Boyd allegedly “falsely accused [Plaintiff ] of commit[t]ing a the[]ft which took place near defendants station of work at the Watts Towers.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges defendant Boyd “willfully went beyond the call of his obligated duties and took it upon himself to misuse his authority as a security guard by using brut[e] force on [Plaintiff].” Id. Plaintiff states defendant Boyd “caused Plaintiff pain, suffering, and plaintiff experienced cruel and unusual punishment by being sever[e]ly beaten by defendant.” Id. Plaintiff further claims “[b]y injuring [Plaintiff] with physical violence for no apparent reason, [defendant Boyd] was retaliating against [Plaintiff] for personal[] benefit.” Id.

         Ultimately, Plaintiff alleges defendant RMI International, “is legally liable for the actions of their employee's illegal actions.” Id. at 3. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for his injuries.

         III.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must screen the Complaint and is required to dismiss the case at any time if it concludes the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).

         In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim for screening purposes, the Court applies the same pleading standard from Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 8”) as it would when evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).

         A complaint may be dismissed 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.” Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). In considering whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all of the material factual allegations in it. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011). However, the court need not accept as true “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) (citation omitted). 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.'” Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Ashcr ...


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.