United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
E. MCDERMOTT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
September 3, 2019, Mohammed Mousa (“Plaintiff”),
a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a letter
that was construed as a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (“Complaint”). On December 15,
2019, a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was
reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the FAC should
be dismissed with leave to amend.
alleges that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
(“LASD”) and Deputies Morisseau and Kerr violated
his civil rights while he was detained at the Los Angeles
County Jail. Plaintiff alleges the following:
Both Defend[a]nts crueled [sic] & unusual punished me by
not feeding me on April-25-19 while Passover any breakfast or
lunch at all while [I] was on the kosher diet. Mr. Morisseau
didn[']t feed me on April-23-19 any dinner at all while
it was Passover and [I] was supposed to eat kosher.
(FAC at 5.) He claims “cruel & unusual
punishment” and “p[h]ysical & emotional
harm” (FAC at 5) and asks for “compensation
relief” (FAC at 6).
complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to
state a claim for two reasons: (1) the plaintiff fails to
state a cognizable legal theory; or (2) the plaintiff has
alleged insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether a complaint
states a claim on which relief may be granted, allegations of
material fact are taken as true and construed in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff. Love v. United
States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1988). However,
“the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a
plaintiff's factual allegations.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A]
liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not
supply essential elements of the claim that were not
initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673
F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
a complaint "does not need detailed factual
allegations" to survive dismissal, a plaintiff must
provide “more than mere labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (rejecting the traditional “no
set of facts” standard set forth in Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). The complaint must contain
factual allegations sufficient to rise above the
“speculative level, ” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555, or the merely possible or conceivable. Id.
at 557, 570.
put, the complaint must contain "enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim has facial
plausibility when the complaint presents enough facts
“to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). This standard is not a probability requirement, but
“it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A
complaint that pleads facts that are merely consistent with
liability stops short of the line between possibility and
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and
(2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under
the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,
48 (1988). Liability may be imposed on an individual
defendant under § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that
the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a
federally protected right. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d
628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives another of a
constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he
does an affirmative act, participates in another's
affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is
legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which
the plaintiff complains. Id. at 633. The inquiry
into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties
and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts
or omissions ...