United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Anthony Shawn Woods (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed an unsigned civil rights complaint
(“Complaint”) pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“Section 1983”) against defendants City of Los
Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles
Sanitation Bureau, Los Angeles County Probation Department,
and Los Angeles County Probation Officer Riley in his
individual and official capacities (collectively,
“Defendants”). ECF Docket No.
(“Dkt.”) 1. As discussed below, the Court
dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend.
October 17, 2017, Plaintiff constructively
filed the Complaint against Defendants.
See Dkt. 1, Compl. at 3-5; Dkt. 2, IFP Application.
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he is homeless and lives on the
streets in downtown Los Angeles. Compl. at 5. Plaintiff
alleges on March 15, 2016 and March 22, 2016, two Los Angeles
Police Department officers and the Los Angeles Sanitation
Bureau “thr[e]w away plaintiff's property.”
further alleges on June 2, 2016, defendant Riley, a Los
Angeles County Probation Officer, issued Plaintiff's
discharge papers with a June 4, 2016 discharge date.
Id. However, Plaintiff alleges he was arrested on
October 1, 2016 for failure to report to his probation
officer. Id. Plaintiff alleges as a result of this
arrest, he spent four days in jail and his property was
“lost.” Id. Plaintiff alleges when he
went to the Hall of Records to see who signed the arrest
affidavit, he was told there was “no file.”
on these allegations, Plaintiff claims violations of the
Fourth Amendment “Freedom [from] Illegal search and
seizure”; Eighth Amendment “Freedom [from] cruel
and unusual punishment”; and Fourteenth Amendment
“Equal Protection of the Law, Due Process of the Law,
Freedom of Liberty.” Id.
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). 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). 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.” Id. The complaint
“must contain sufficient allegations of underlying
facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to
defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652
F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).
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). However, liberal
construction should only be afforded to “a
plaintiff's factual allegations, ” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104
L.Ed.2d 339 (1989), and the Court need not accept as true
“unreasonable inferences or assume the truth of legal
conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations, ”
Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir.
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 amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to
amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1107-11; see also Moss
v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009).