United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO United States Magistrate Judge
Jack Robert Smith (“Plaintiff”) has filed a
pro se civil rights complaint
(“Complaint”) alleging Defendants Harry Oreol and
all staff members of Patton State Hospital
(“Defendants”) violated his First, Fifth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“Section 1983”). Plaintiff additionally raises
state law claims including negligent infliction of emotional
distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
medical malpractice, illegal detainment, and defamation. For
the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses the
Complaint with leave to amend.
4, 2017, Plaintiff constructively filed a prose
civil rights complaint alleging staff employed by Patton
State Hospital violated his First, Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights and committed other state law
violations. ECF Docket No. ("Dkt.") 1 at 5.
Plaintiff's claims are based on allegations of
"physical abuse [and] ongoing mental abuse & is
about [Plaintiff] being illegally detained [at Patton State
Hospital]." Id. at 7. Plaintiff further alleges
"[his] character has been assassinated, [he] has been
lied about, physically abused, slandered." Id.
at 8. He additionally claims Defendants "force [him] on
medication, tell [him] to shut up & then they desperately
try & convince everybody that [he] is incompetent &
[is] incapable of making important life decisions."
alleges he has submitted "serious complaints" about
his treatment, yet "[the hospital's] first response
was not to address the issue and help [him] in any way."
Id. According to Plaintiff, " [his] current
doctor is trying to get [him] released straight out... [b]ut
Harry Oreol the executive director of the hospital refuses to
allow that power to be exercised." Id. at 7.
Plaintiff alleges, as a result, Defendants "are robbing
[him] of his constitutional rights." Id.
seeks $100, 000, 000 in monetary damages, as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief requiring (1) release of
"all non dangerous patients that are capable of living
by themselves or with the aid of responsible family or
friends"; and (2) "ConRep or any outpatient
treatment program be made optional and not mandatory."
Id. at 6.
civil actions where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis, Congress requires district courts to dismiss
the complaint “at any time” if the court
determines the complaint, or any portion thereof: (1) is
frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1126-27 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
when a plaintiff is not proceeding in forma
pauperis, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
permits a court to dismiss a claim sua sponte and
without notice “where the claimant cannot possibly win
relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813
F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Sparling v.
Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988)
(same). The court's authority in this regard includes
sua sponte dismissal of claims against defendants
who have not been served and defendants who have not yet
answered or appeared. See Abagnin v. AMVAC Chemical
Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742-43 (9th Cir. 2008).
applying these standards, “a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 889-90 (9th Cir. 2008)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). However,
“a pro se litigant is not excused from knowing
the most basic pleading requirements” or “from
following court rules.” Am. Ass'n of
Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104,
1107-08 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted); see also Pliler v. Ford, 542 ...