United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO United States Magistrate Judge
Jack Robert Smith (“Plaintiff”), proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant
Harry Oreol (“Defendant”) in his individual
capacity for violations of Plaintiff's Fourteenth
Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section
1983”). For the reasons discussed below, the Court
dismisses the FAC with leave to amend.
27, 2017, Plaintiff constructively filed a civil rights
complaint alleging defendant Patton State Hospital violated
his Fourteenth Amendment rights to substantive due process
and to be free from “cruel and unusual punishment [and]
torture.” ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1 at 4.
Plaintiff alleged he was being hospitalized at Patton State
Hospital “for no reason, ” that he was “not
in need of treatment, ” did “not take medication,
” and is “not mentally ill & not
dangerous.” Id. at 6. He further claimed his
confinement was “unnecessary, unjustifiable,
oppressive, dangerous & cruel.” Id.
August 11, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's
complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim.
August 17, 2017, Plaintiff constructively filed the instant
FAC against defendant Harry Oreol, the Executive Director of
Patton State Hospital, claiming that “[a]s a result of
Harry Oreols' negligence, [Plaintiff] is being
‘robbed of [his] Constitutional rights.'”
Dkt. 9. In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges the “conditions
of [his] confinement are ‘unjustifiable, oppressive,
dangerous & cruel.'” Id. at 7.
Plaintiff further claims he is “hospitalized although
[he] [is] ‘not mentally ill, not dangerous &
receiving no treatment.'” Id. Plaintiff
alleges his “‘health & safety is in
danger' because [he] [is] ‘forced to live with
abusive staff & dangerous severely mentally ill patients,
that are heavily medicated, unsanitary, mean, disrespectful,
aggravating & have committed murders & other
horrendous violent crimes.'” Id.
Specifically, Plaintiff claims that on September 10, 2014, he
was “viciously attacked by a patient for no
reason.” Id. Plaintiff states he is
“‘living in fear, deprived of [his] life &
liberty, suffering endless amounts of frustration, stress
& uncertainty.'” Id.
Plaintiff seeks “$250, 000, 000 in monetary and
punitive damages.” Id. at 5.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court
must screen the FAC 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 U.S. 662, 678, 129
S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)). A claim is facially
plausible when it “allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Cook, 637 F.3d at 1004
document filed pro se is to be liberally construed,
and 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) (citation omitted).
“[W]e have an obligation where the p[laintiff] is pro
se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the
pleadings liberally and to afford the p[laintiff] the benefit
of any doubt.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202,
1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
court finds the complaint should be dismissed for failure to
state a claim, the court has discretion to dismiss with or
without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Leave to amend should be
granted if it appears possible the defects in the complaint
could be corrected, especially if the plaintiff is pro
se. Id. at 1130-31; see also Cato v. United
States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). However, if,
after careful consideration, it is clear a complaint cannot
be cured by ...