United States District Court, C.D. California
WEBSTER S. LUCAS, Plaintiff,
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT., et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Webster S. Lucas (“Plaintiff”), proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (“Section 1983”) against defendants
Jim McDonnell, Deputy Sneed, and Paul Pfrehm
(“Defendants”) for violations of his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. As discussed below, the Court
dismisses the FAC with leave to amend.
April 24, 2017, Plaintiff constructively filed a Complaint
pursuant to Section 1983 against defendants Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department, Jim McDonnell, and Deputy
Sneed. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. Plaintiff
appeared to allege Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
violations resulting from the failure to properly classify
Plaintiff as a sex-offender inmate.
11, 2017, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to
amend for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 6.
21, 2017, Plaintiff constructively filed a FAC. Dkt. 9.
Plaintiff sues Defendants in their official and individual
capacities for violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. Id. at 2-3, 6.
ALLEGATIONS IN THE FAC
alleges, on October 7, 2016, defendant Jim McDonnell at Los
Angeles County Jail failed to properly classify Plaintiff as
a special housing inmate based on his status as a sex
offender. Id. at 4, 6. Plaintiff alleges this
violated the deputy's “duty to provide safety for
inmates - especially for inmates who are regularly targeted
and assaulted for being [sex offenders].” Id.
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. at 4-5.
Plaintiff claims defendant Sneed “knew or reasonably
should have known that his actions . . . would cause violence
against Plaintiff.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff claims
when he and the inmate returned to their holding cell, the
inmate began yelling “we have a ‘child
molester' in Cell 43 next door.” Id. at 5.
Plaintiff further alleges he was “forced to go to Cell
# 44 where his attackers lay waiting.” Id. As
a result, Plaintiff claims he suffers “‘Mental
Flashes' (of seeing himself in a pool of blood dying),
” and “depression/anxiety and nightmares, ”
all of which have led him to “receiv[e] psych.
Medications - Seroquil and Zoloff to deal with the mental
illness associated with the flashes.” Id. at
additionally claims he is being retaliated against for filing
a complaint regarding the misidentification and incident at
the Antelope Valley Courthouse. See id.; Ex. A.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges defendant Sneed is
“retaliating against Plaintiff” for a grievance
he filed on October 19, 2016. Id. at 6, Ex. A. He
additionally alleges defendant Prfehm “failed to
discipline all parties who retaliated against
Plaintiff.” Id. at 2. Lastly, Plaintiff
alleges defendant McDonnell “failed to reprimand
deputies who clearly retaliated against Plaintiff” in
addition to “fail[ing] to properly train
deputies.” Id. at 6.
result of these claims, Plaintiff seeks a “settlement
or that Plaintiff's demand  be honored, and any other
relief the Court deems appropriate.” Id. at 8.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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. § ...