United States District Court, C.D. California
WEBSTER S. LUCAS, Plaintiff,
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT., et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KITO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Webster S. Lucas (“Plaintiff”), proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a
Complaint (“Complaint”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (“Section 1983”) against defendants
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Jim McDonnell -
Sheriff, and Deputy Sneed (“Defendants”). As
discussed below, the Court dismisses the Complaint with leave
IN THE COMPLAINT
April 24, 2017, Plaintiff constructively filed1 a Complaint
pursuant to Section 1983 against Defendants. ECF Docket No.
(“Dkt.”). Plaintiff sues (1) Sheriff Jim
McDonnell, in his individual and official capacity, for
failing to train his deputy sheriffs to properly classify
incoming arrestees; (2) Deputy Sneed, in his individual and
official capacity, for negligently allowing another inmate to
attend Plaintiff's preliminary hearing; and (3) the Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department for the actions of
its deputies. Id. at 5.
to the Complaint, Plaintiff is a registered sex offender.
Id. at 5, 8. Plaintiff alleges on October 19, 2016,
defendant Deputy Sneed “allowed an inmate to sit
in” Plaintiff's preliminary hearing at Antelope
Valley Courthouse during which Plaintiff was being charged
with failure to register as a sex offender. Id.
Plaintiff claims when he and the inmate returned to their
holding cell, the inmate began “‘yelling'
‘we have a child molester here!'”
Id. at 5. Plaintiff alleges the inmate “began
instigating other inmates to beat [him] up or kill
[him].” Id. at 8.
alleges that on the same day, defendant Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department “failed to properly classify
Plaintiff upon Plaintiff's reception in to the L.A.
County Jail.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff alleges he
was classified as a “‘General Population
Inmate' instead of a K-6Y Inmate who are separately
housed in Administrative Segregation Housing and kept away
from General Population inmates.” Id.
Plaintiff claims this misclassification placed his life in
result of Defendants' alleged actions, Plaintiff claims
he has become “mentally affected with flashes of seeing
[himself] lying in a pool of blood with broken and smashed
head, ribs, etc.” Id. at 25. Plaintiff further
alleges that on January 2, 2017, he “was interviewed by
a psychiatrist” regarding the “flashes [he]
suffer[s] [from] as a result of the incidents which occurred
on October 19, 2016.” Id. at 14. Plaintiff
claimed he “was satisfied with the conversation [he]
had with the physician, ” but would like a follow-up
appointment because “the flashes have slowed, but not
gone away.” Id. at 14.
result of these claims, Plaintiff seeks damages against
defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and
Jim McDonnell for $150, 000 and against defendant Deputy
Sneed for $100, 000. Id. at 6.
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