United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
D. EARLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
November 14, 2017, Plaintiff Bernard Woulldar
(“Plaintiff”), who is currently incarcerated at
the Twin Towers Correctional Facility (“the
Jail”) in Los Angeles, California, filed a pro
se Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“Section 1983” or § 1983”). Dkt. 1.
The Complaint names Deputy Contreras, Sergeant Villareal, and
Sergeant Brown, all apparently employees of the Jail, in
their official and unofficial capacities. Complaint at 4. All
of the Defendants are sued in their individual and official
capacities. Id. Plaintiff seeks “compensation
for all reasons listed under law.” Id. at 6.
accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A,
the Court must screen the Complaint before ordering service
for purposes of determining whether the action is frivolous
or malicious; or fails to state a claim on which relief might
be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief. For the reasons set forth below,
the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
following represents the totality of the factual allegations
Plaintiff offers to support his claims (Complaint at 5):
[Plaintiff] was racially profiled on different occasions and
subjective to unlawful detainment in segregation [without]
just cause. [Plaintiff] was subjected to cruel and unusual
punishment and deliberate indifference, pain and suffering,
and mental anguish and denied proper and adequate law library
access and phone calls[, ] as well as visitation.
complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to
state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal
theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal
theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,
901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether the
complaint states a claim, its factual allegations must be
taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff. See Love v. United States, 915 F.2d
1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Courts construe the allegations
of pro se complaints liberally. Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); see also Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (as amended).
However, “a liberal interpretation of a civil rights
complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that
were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat'l Credit
Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997)
“plaintiff's obligation to provide the
‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to relief'
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.
. . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption
that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if
doubtful in fact).” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations
omitted); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). Thus, a plaintiff must allege a minimum factual
and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give
each defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claims
are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g.,
Brazil v. United States Dep't of the Navy, 66
F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block,
932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Moreover, failure to
comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
constitutes an independent basis for dismissal of a complaint
even if the claims in a complaint are not found to be wholly
without merit. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,
1179 (9th Cir. 1996); Nevijel v. Northcoast Life Ins.
Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).
Court finds that a 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) (en banc). Leave to amend
should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in
the complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff
is pro se. Id. at 1130-31; see also Cato v.
United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995)
(noting that “[a] pro se litigant must be given leave
to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its
deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that the
deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by
amendment”). However, if, after careful consideration,
it is clear that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment,
the Court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato,
70 F.3d at 1105-06; see, e.g., Chaset v.