United States District Court, C.D. California
ARLENE R. ATHERTON, Plaintiff,
BEVERLY HILLS PUBLIC LIBRARY, ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Arlene R. Atherton (“Plaintiff”), proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a
“civil rights” Complaint pursuant to the
Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). For the
reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses the Complaint
with leave to amend.
IN THE COMPLAINT
November 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Complaint under the
ADA and Section 1983. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1.
Although not entirely clear, the Complaint appears to sue the
Beverly Hills Library and Beverly Hills Police Department
(collectively, “Defendants”). Id. at 3.
Plaintiff appears to allege Defendants violated her
constitutional rights and failed to accommodate her traumatic
brain injury when she was removed from the Beverly Hills
Public Library on November 25, 2019 by the Beverly Hills
Police Department and was required to meet with a library
supervisor to reinstate her public use privileges.
Id. at 1-2. While not entirely clear, it appears
Plaintiff also claims her removal from the Beverly Hills
Library prevented her from complying with deadlines in other
cases before the federal district court in Illinois and the
United States Supreme Court. Id. Plaintiff does not
appear to seek any specific relief.
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
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (“Rule 8”), a
complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief, ”
and “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), (d). In determining whether
a complaint fails to state a claim for screening purposes,
the Court applies the same pleading standard 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).
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. 2003).
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 ...