United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO United States Magistrate Judge
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.
January 26, 2017, Plaintiff, who is in the custody of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at
the Wasco State Prison, constructively filed 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.
October 7, 2016, defendant Boyd allegedly “falsely
accused [Plaintiff ] of commit[t]ing a theft 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.
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
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).
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.
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 ...