United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
KENLY KIYA KATO, United States Magistrate Judge
Ivin Mood (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis, filed a First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 (“Section 1983”). It appears Plaintiff is
suing defendants County of Orange and City of Newport Beach
(“Defendants”) for violations of Section 1983
arising out of an incident at Orange County Jail. As
discussed below, the Court dismisses the FAC with leave to
April 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint appearing to sue
defendants County of Orange and Orange County Jail Deputy D.
Lopes in his official capacity for violations of Section 1983
and state law arising out of an incident on April 30, 2016 at
Santa Ana Central Jail. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”)
18, 2017, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to
state a claim and granted Plaintiff leave to amend. Dkt. 7.
5, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant FAC suing
Defendants. Dkt. 8. Plaintiff alleges he was arrested
without probable cause pursuant to a City of Newport Beach
policy of arresting homeless persons without probable cause.
Id. at 3-7. Plaintiff also alleges he suffered abuse
when County of Orange sheriffs slammed his face into a jail
cell window during intake at Orange County Jail pursuant to a
County of Orange policy of excessive force. Id. at
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 ...