2:13-cv-00710
C.D. Cal.Mar 5, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Leon Banks, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against six John Does and one Jane Doe employed by Los Angeles County Jail.
- Plaintiff alleges excessive force and inadequate medical treatment during an incident around March 18, 2009, while en route to med-call at the jail.
- Doe Defendants are named in their individual and official capacities; plaintiff seeks damages totaling $1,800,000.
- Court must review in forma pauperis complaints for frivolousness or failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A.
- Court finds the complaint warrants dismissal as pled but grants leave to amend to cure deficiencies.
- Plaintiff may discover Doe identities and amend, but service cannot proceed without named defendants and a proper amended complaint on a court-approved form.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Official-capacity claim against Does viability | Banks alleges county liability through policy/custom. | No identified county policy or custom alleged. | Official-capacity claims dismissed; no policy or custom shown. |
| Sufficiency of excessive force claim | Doe Defendants beat him with batons and pepper sprayed him. | Plaintiff fails to provide detailed facts showing personal liability. | Eighth Amendment excessive force claim dismissed for lack of plausible facts. |
| Sufficiency of inadequate medical treatment claim | Doe Defendants denied proper medical treatment after assault. | No deliberate indifference shown due to vague medical-treatment allegations. | Inadequate medical care claim dismissed for lack of specific deliberate-indifference facts. |
| John Doe defendants and amendment procedure | Names unknown; discovery should identify Does. | Without named defendants, service cannot be ordered. | Plaintiff may amend to name Does; must file First Amended Complaint on court-approved form. |
| Standard and pleading requirements for amendment | Amendment should fix deficiencies. | Amendment must meet Rule 8 and be fully retyped. | Leave to amend granted; must satisfy Rule 8 and be a complete, new complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (recast standard for failure-to-state-a-claim review in § 1983 cases)
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (complaint must state a plausible claim; factual allegations must raise relief above speculative level)
- Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242 (9th Cir. 1990) (application of plausibility standard in evaluating complaints)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (claims must be plausible, not just possible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading factual content)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (excessive-force inquiry factors; intent and severity considered)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate-indifference standard for medical needs)
- Broughton v. Cutter Labs., 622 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1980) (negligence alone not enough for Eighth Amendment claim)
- McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (requirement of purposeful disregard for pain or medical need)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (amended complaint supersedes prior pleading; avoid incorporating by reference)