Opinion
2:20-cv-09593-ODW (SHK)
11-22-2021
ERIC A. LANGLEY, Plaintiff, v. TWIN TOWERS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
Shashi H. Kewalramani, United States Magistrate Judge
On October 20, 2020, Plaintiff Eric A. Langley (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint (“Complaint” or “Compl.”) against Twin Towers Correctional Facility (“Twin Towers”), the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department (“LASD”), Nickolay Teophilov in his official capacity, and D. Estrella in their official capacity (collectively, “Defendants”). Electronic Case Filing Number (“ECF No.”) 1, Compl. As discussed in this Order, the Court finds that the Complaint is subject to dismissal, but grants Plaintiff leave to amend in accordance with the instructions in Section IV of this Order.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee at Twin Towers. Id. at 5. Plaintiff filed his Complaint under 42 U.S.C § 1983 (“§ 1983”), seeking monetary damages for alleged violations of his constitutional rights by prison officials and LASD while he was incarcerated at Twin Towers. Id. at 14.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following violations of his rights:
1) “Denial of proper medical care”;
2) “Consistently given the wrong medications or over[-]medicated”;
3) “Medical staff cancelling medical appointments”;
4) “Denial of food”;
5) “Denial of showers everyday”;
6) “[P]ersonal information (home address, military background, finances and medical) leaked consistently from the [s]ergeants, [c]ustody and [g]uards to various lower level inmates and inmates in charge of the [Twin Tower] Pods [.]”Id. at 3. Plaintiff claims that, over the past year, several Twin Towers medical staffhave “consistently refused, ignored, and prevented [Plaintiff] from receiving proper medical care . . . after being severely beaten numerous times by inmates and abused by guards.” Id.
The medical staff are the following: Dr. Nickolay Teophilov, Dr. Ali, Ms. Guadros, Ms. Cooper, a therapist named Sarah, and “[v]arious other doctors, ‘pill medication call staff', other therapists, and other nurses[.]” Id. The Court notes that only Dr. Teophilov was named as a defendant, while the others were not.
Elsewhere in his Complaint, Plaintiff complains of instances of violence he allegedly experienced in Twin Towers. Id. at 7-11. First, Plaintiff claims that in late October 2019, he was “severely beaten by numerous gang member inmates” during his incarceration at the Twin Towers. Id. at 7. Plaintiff claims that he was “bullied and threatened to sign a waiver not to sue or press charges against the inmates who attacked [him] or [Plaintiff] would be placed back in the same Pod of where [he] was [attacked].” Id. Plaintiff asserts that the October 2019 attack was recorded by the “jail cameras.” Id.
Plaintiff's second violence-related claim is that in June 2020, he was “severely beaten by another inmate deliberately set up by the guards in [Twin Tower's] Tower II[.]” Id. Plaintiff once again claims that he was “bullied and threatened to sign another waiver not to sue or press charges against the inmates who attacked [Plaintiff]” in order not to be placed back in the same pod where he was attacked, and that the June 2020 attack was also recorded by the jail cameras. Id.
Plaintiff's third violence-related claim is that on August 25, 2020, he “received severe body bruising, two black eyes, a head concussion, and a dislocated shoulder by guards” and that “the guards told [Plaintiff] he was being filmed because it was standard policy procedure in the manner of which I was transferred from Tower II to Tower I.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff states that he was “handcuffed to a bench by a guard” and the “eight or ten guards” who transferred him were “very rough, brutal, mean, abusive and intimidating.” Id. at 11. Plaintiff alleges that he was thrown to the ground by one guard while another forced his knee into Plaintiff's back and a third pressed on his neck and cut off his air circulation. Id. Plaintiff was then allegedly placed in a cell, forced to extend his arms past the cell bars, and his hands were then cuffed outside of the cell, so Defendant could not sit or move. Id. Plaintiff was then strapped to a bed, had all his clothes cut off, and was left naked. Id. at 12. Through this incident, Plaintiff allegedly sustained two black eyes, a dislocated shoulder, and “serious body bruising and soreness for about ten days.” Id.
In addition to the specific incidences of violence described above, Plaintiff claims that, over the past year, several prison officials and inmates have “consistently bullied, threatened, abused, intimidated, denied [Plaintiff's] food, [and] denied [Plaintiff his] medications” while he was incarcerated. Id. at 7.
The allegedly responsible Twin Towers staff are the following: Guard Ramos, Guard Kasas, Guard Gunny, Deputy Smith, Deputy Polacio, Deputy Thomas, Sergeant Estrella, Sean Henderson, Inmate D-Note, Inmate Armstrong, and “various other inmates, [s]ergeants, and guards[.]” ECF No. 1, Compl. at 7. The Court notes that these individuals have not been named as defendants.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
As 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. § 1915A(b); see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissing complaint for failing to state any elements of claims for relief).
In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim for screening purposes, the Court applies the same pleading standard from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 8 (“Rule 8”) as it would when evaluating a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6). 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. 8(a)(2).
A 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 and internal quotation marks omitted). In considering whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all 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 and internal quotation marks 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) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 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. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 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).
“A 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) (citations and internal quotation marks 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 and internal quotation marks omitted). If the 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; 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 Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2002) (upholding dismissal without leave to amend where additional facts did not establish elements of claim).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff Attempts to Join Unrelated Claims in Violation of Rule 18.
FRCP Rule 18 (“Rule 18”) provides that “[a] party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a). This means that a “[p]laintiff may pursue multiple claims against a single defendant, but he may not pursue unrelated claims against different defendants.” Morris v. Virga, No. CIV S-10-2069-GEB, 2012 WL 1155674, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2012) (citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007)).
Here, Plaintiff has two seemingly distinct sets of claims against two different sets of defendants. First, Plaintiff makes claims related to the conditions of his confinement at Twin Towers, the majority of which relate to the facility's provision of Plaintiff's medical care. Id. at 3. Plaintiff appears to be alleging that medical staff at Twin Towers were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's health and need for medical treatment. Id. at 7. The second set of claims in Plaintiff's Complaint stem from episodes of violence that Plaintiff allegedly experienced at Twin Towers. Id. at 7-11. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was beaten by inmates on two occasions and by guards on a third occasion and that he is bullied daily by guards and other inmates. Id. While Plaintiff attempts to allege that all these claims are related, in fact, they are separate claims allegedly caused by separate Defendants and non-party individuals. Therefore, the claims against the medical staff for deliberate indifference to medical needs are unrelated to the claims against the guards and other inmates for the beatings, in violation of Rule 18. Plaintiff must therefore choose which set of claims he wishes to go forward with in this case.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against all named individuals and entities other than Defendant Twin Towers are subject to dismissal for this reason, but the Court will give Plaintiff leave to amend. Plaintiff may choose the set of claims he wishes to proceed with in this lawsuit, and he may file a separate lawsuit for the other claims. See Williams v. Sabo, No. CV 20-1373-PA (KK), 2020 WL 4586857, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2020) (“When numerous claims are misjoined, the court can generally dismiss all but the first named defendant without prejudice to the institution of new, separate lawsuits against some or all of the present defendants based on the claim or claims attempted to be set forth in the present complaint.”) (citations omitted).
B. Several of Plaintiff's Allegations Are Against Non-Named Parties in Violation of Rule 10.
FRCP Rule 10(a) (“Rule 10”) requires that plaintiffs include the names of all parties in the caption of the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties[.]”). The Court cannot order service of the FAC without this information. Soto v. Bd. of Prison Term, 2007 WL 2947573, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2007).
Plaintiff's Complaint includes numerous factual allegations against various Twin Towers staff and unnamed inmates. ECF No. 1, Compl. at 7. However, although Plaintiff makes claims against these individuals, they are not named in the caption of Plaintiff's Complaint. See id. at 1-3.
If Plaintiff intends to pursue claims against these individuals, Plaintiff must name them as defendants in the caption of any amended pleading pursuant to Rule 10(a); otherwise, Plaintiff's claims against these individuals fail and are subject to dismissal. See Martinez v. Davey, No. 16-cv-1658-AWI-MJS (PC), 2018 WL 898153, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (dismissing, among other reasons, because “Plaintiff makes allegations against numerous non-party individuals not named in the caption of the complaint” in violation of Rule 10(a)).
C. Plaintiff Cannot Bring a § 1983 Claim Against Individual Inmates And Has Not Alleged A Proper Claim Against the Twin Towers.
To state a viable federal civil rights claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a “person, ” while acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a right guaranteed under the Constitution or a federal statute. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). In the § 1983 context, “person” means state and local officials sued in their individual capacities, as well as local governments. Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Monell v. N.Y. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978)); Vance v. County of Santa Clara, 928 F.Supp. 993, 995-96 (N.D. Cal. 1996). The term “person” in this context does not include “sub-units” of local governments such as municipal departments or agencies. Vance, 928 F.Supp. at 996; see also United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1239 (9th Cir. 2005) (Ferguson, J., concurring) (noting that municipal police departments and bureaus are generally not considered “persons” within the meaning of § 1983); Morales v. City of Delano, 2010 WL 2942645, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. July 23, 2010) (listing cases holding that municipal sub-units, such as police departments, are not “persons” under § 1983). Correctional facilities are municipal sub-units that are not “persons” under § 1983. Colon v. Los Angeles Cty. Jail, No. 2:18-CV-09727-R (AFM), 2019 WL 404168, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019).
Additionally, even if the Complaint could be read as a suit against the County of Los Angeles (“County”), the County can be liable in a § 1983 action only if Plaintiff can establish that the County “had a deliberate policy, custom, or practice that was the ‘moving force' behind the constitutional violation he suffered.” Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 667 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694-95). However, the Complaint here does not identify, as required by Monell, any specific policies or practices of the County that caused Plaintiff's alleged injuries. For this reason, the Complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend.
Additionally, Plaintiff brings claims against multiple parties, including individual unnamed inmates at Twin Towers and Twin Towers itself. ECF No. 1, Compl. at 1, 2, 7. Inmates are private individuals, not employed by the state or a local municipality, and therefore cannot be sued as “persons” under § 1983. See Cortez, 294 F.3d at 1188. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims against the individual unnamed inmates and Twin Towers are subject to dismissal.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice, and with leave to amend. It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff would like to continue to prosecute this action, Plaintiff file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) within twenty-one days of the service date of this Order.
On the first page, Plaintiff should clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First Amended Complaint, ” include the docket number assigned to this case, and write the amended pleading on this Court's CV-066 form, which the Clerk of Court is directed to mail to Plaintiff along with this Order.
In the body of the FAC, Plaintiff must include all claims that Plaintiff would like to pursue, even if Plaintiff previously stated them in the original Complaint. If Plaintiff does not raise a claim in the FAC, the Court will consider it waived. Plaintiff cannot refer to the original Complaint or any other pleading, attachment, or document to state a claim in the FAC. Plaintiff cannot include in the body of the FAC any new defendants or new allegations that are not reasonably related to the claims asserted in the original Complaint.
For the claims that the Court found deficient in the above Order, Plaintiff must fix the deficiencies consistent with the Court's Order in the FAC if Plaintiff wishes to continue litigating those claims. Plaintiff should note that if Plaintiff files a FAC restating deficient claims without fixing them, the Court may not allow Plaintiff another opportunity to file an amended complaint and instead may dismiss the action. If there are claims which the Court did not find deficient, Plaintiff must still re-plead that claim in the FAC in its entirety if Plaintiff seeks to continue litigating the claim.
Plaintiff is cautioned that if Plaintiff does not timely file a FAC, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed with or without prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and/or failure to obey Court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Dismissal “with prejudice” means that Plaintiff will not be able to bring this action in federal court again, while “without prejudice” means Plaintiff can re-file this action in this Court. If Plaintiff believes more time is necessary to file a FAC, Plaintiff may request an extension of time from the Court before the 21-day period mentioned above expires. However, the Court will only grant an extension if Plaintiff demonstrates good cause for needing more time (for example, if Plaintiff has requested police reports to determine Defendants' names but will not receive them in time to file an amended complaint).
Plaintiff is advised that the Court's determination in this Order that the allegations in the Complaint are insufficient to state a particular claim should not be seen as dispositive of that claim. Accordingly, while the Court believes Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient factual matter in the pleading, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is viable on its face, Plaintiff is not required to omit any claim to pursue this action. However, if Plaintiff asserts a claim in the FAC that has been found to be deficient without addressing the claim's deficiencies, then the Court, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636, ultimately will submit to the assigned district judge a recommendation that such claim be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, subject to Plaintiffs right at that time to file Objections with the district judge as provided in the Local Rules Governing Duties of Magistrate Judges.
Finally, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a blank Notice of Dismissal Form.