United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO United States Magistrate Judge
Ivin Mood (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint
(“Complaint”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“Section 1983”). While not entirely clear, it
appears Plaintiff is suing defendants County of Orange and
Orange County Jail Deputy D. Lopes in his official capacity
(“Defendants”) for violations of Section 1983 as
well as state law claims arising out of an incident on April 30,
2016 at Santa Ana Central Jail. As discussed below, the Court
dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend.
IN THE COMPLAINT
April 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to
Section 1983. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the Orange
County Sheriffs have a “customary practice of
unnecessary misuse of force carried out for thrills
alone.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff alleges, on April
30, 2016, after being falsely arrested and brought to Santa
Ana Central Jail, two deputies, including D. Lopes,
“abused” Plaintiff and then placed him in a cell.
Id. Plaintiff alleges the abuse he suffered was the
same as the abuse described in a Los Angeles Times article
whereby inmates are lifted by both arms, slammed “face
first into a wall, they then bend the arm behind the persons
back, and then they place the inmate in a separate
cell.” Id. A few minutes later, the deputies
“purposely” placed another inmate “who was
acting wild from the drugs he was high on” in
Plaintiff's cell “so that he would begin to fight
with” Plaintiff, but Plaintiff “was able to
ignore him.” Id. Plaintiff alleges he
“did absolutely nothing to cause these deputies to
cause me bodily injury.” Id.
addition, Plaintiff alleges one of the deputies “was
trying to cover for what he did” by asking Plaintiff
what he was charged with, where the arrest occurred, and
whether Plaintiff was drunk. Id. Plaintiff also
alleges he asked to speak to a civil rights representative
because he felt he was falsely arrested and the jail clerks
were not permitted to accept civil rights complaints at the
booking window. Id. Finally, Plaintiff alleges his
“constitutional injury” was the result of the
“unlawful pattern or practice and falsified reports of
alleged resisting arrest claims.” Id. at 6.
result of these claims, Plaintiff seeks $100, 000 in
compensatory and punitive damages as well as an injunction
“warning the defendants that repeated actions of this
kind will cause an additional claim for Constitutional claims
award relating to contempt and conspiracy to cause
intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
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);
see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th
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)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 ...