josey richard meche claim and dismissal

8/12/2019 Josey Richard Meche claim and dismissal

1/22

FILEDCLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BY: ___________________ DEPUTY

2/27/2014

MAD

PSG

Case 2:14-cv-01229-PSG-AS Document 3 Filed 02/27/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:22


2/22



3/22



4/22



5/22



6/22



7/22



8/22



9/22



10/22



11/22



12/22



13/22



14/22



15/22


16/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I n ci vi l act i ons wher e t he pl ai nt i f f i s pr oceedi ng i n f or ma

pauper i s, ( I FP) , Congr ess requi r es di st r i ct cour t s t o di smi ss t he

compl ai nt i f t he cour t det er mi nes t hat t he compl ai nt , or any por t i on

t her eof , ( 1) i s f r i vol ous or mal i ci ous, ( 2) f ai l s t o stat e a cl ai mupon

whi ch r el i ef can be gr ant ed, or ( 3) seeks monet ar y r el i ef f r om a

def endant who i s i mmune f r om such r el i ef . 28 U. S. C. 1915( e) ( 2) .

However , when a pl ai nt i f f appear s pr o se i n a ci vi l r i ght s case,

t he Cour t must const r ue t he pl eadi ngs l i ber al l y and af f or d t he pl ai nt i f f

t he benef i t of any doubt . Kar i m- Panahi v. Los Angel es Pol i ce Dep t . ,

839 F. 2d 621, 623 ( 9t h Ci r . 1988) . I n gi vi ng l i ber al i nt er pr et at i on t oa pr o se compl ai nt , t he cour t may not , however , suppl y essent i al

el ement s of a cl ai m t hat wer e not i ni t i al l y pl ed. I vey v. Bd. of

Regent s of Uni v. Of Al aska, 673 F. 2d 266, 268 ( 9t h Ci r . 1982) . A cour t

must gi ve a pr o se l i t i gant l eave t o amend t he compl ai nt unl ess i t i s

absol ut el y cl ear t hat t he def i ci enci es of t he compl ai nt coul d not be

cured by amendment . Kar i m- Panahi , 839 F. 2d at 623 ( ci t at i on and

i nt er nal quot at i on omi t t ed) .

Under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , a t r i al cour t may

di smi ss a cl ai m sua spont e wher e t he cl ai mant cannot possi bl y wi n

r el i ef . Omar v. Sea- Land Ser v. , I nc. , 813 F. 2d 986, 991 ( 9t h Ci r .

1987) ; See al so Baker v. Di r ect or , U. S. Par ol e Comm n, 916 F. 2d 725, 726

( D. C. Ci r . 1990) ( per cur i am) ( adopt i ng Ni nt h Ci r cui t s posi t i on i n Omar

and not i ng t hat such a sua spont e di smi ssal i s pr act i cal and f ul l y

consi stent wi t h pl ai nt i f f s r i ght s and t he ef f i c i ent use of j udi ci al

r esour ces) . The Cour t f i nds that t he i nst ant Compl ai nt f ai l s t o st at e

a cogni zabl e cl ai m f or r el i ef agai nst t he Def endant s. However , l eave

2



17/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

t o amend i s grant ed.

II.

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

Pl ai nt i f f al l eges t hat unknown l aw enf or cement of f i cer s vi ol at ed hi s

ci vi l r i ght s by par t i ci pat i ng i n an of f i ci al sanct i oned ar r est.

( Compl ai nt at 3) . The compl ai nt names t he def endant s i n t hei r

i ndi vi dual capaci t y onl y. I d.

The compl ai nt al l eges t hat whi l e Pl ai nt i f f was bei ng ar r est ed on Mar ch

13, 2013, and af t er he was f ace down and handcuf f ed, unknown l awenf or cement of f i cer s appl i ed pr essure on hi s back i n an at t empt t o

asphyxi at e hi m, appl i ed pr essur e t o hi s skul l and dr agged hi m on t he

gr ound causi ng i nj ur i es, ment al angui sh and P. T. S. D. ( Compl ai nt at

5) . Pl ai nt i f f f ur t her al l eges t hat whi l e he was bei ng t r anspor t ed t o

t he hospi t al and t o t he j ai l i n a pol i ce car , t he met al par t of a dog

l eashe ( si c) t hat was f ashi oned ar ound hi s ankl es was l ef t hangi ng out

of t he car wher e i t scr aped agai nst t he gr ound and st r uck t he si de of

t he car maki ng a bangi ng noi se. I d. at 6. Pl ai nt i f f cont ends t hat

def endant s vi ol at ed hi s r i ght t o be f r ee f r om unr easonabl e sei zur e i n

t he f or m of excessi ve f or ce . . . i n a manner t hat . . . const i t ut es

cr uel and unusual puni shment because i t was done . . . t o cause i nj ur y.

I d. , at 5.

Pl ai nt i f f seeks damages of $1, 500, 000 f or pai n and suf f er i ng, ment al

angui sh and l ong l ast i ng ment al i l l ness. Pl ai nt i f f al so seeks t o have

t he of f i cer s hel d cr i mi nal l y account abl e f or t hei r act i ons and r equest s

r ei mbur sement f or medi cal t r eat ment . I d. , at 6.

3



18/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III.

DISCUSSION

The Cour t must di smi ss Pl ai nt i f f s compl ai nt due t o def ect s i n

pl eadi ng. Pr o se l i t i gant s i n ci vi l r i ght s cases, however , must be

gi ven l eave t o amend t hei r compl ai nt s unl ess i t i s absol ut el y cl ear t hat

t he def i ci enci es cannot be cured by amendment . See Lopez v. Smi t h, 203

F. 3d 1122, 1128- 29 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) ( en banc) . Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t

gr ant s Pl ai nt i f f l eave t o amend, as i ndi cat ed bel ow.

A. The Complaint Fails To State A Claim For Excessive

Force Under Section 1983

Al t hough t he compl ai nt i s uncl ear , Pl ai nt i f f appear s t o be

at t empt i ng t o asser t a ci vi l r i ght s cl ai mf or excessi ve f or ce dur i ng hi s

arrest. 2 ( Compl ai nt at 5) . An excessi ve f or ce anal ysi s r equi r es

eval uat i ng t he sever i t y of t he cr i me at i ssue, whet her t he suspect

poses an i mmedi at e t hr eat t o t he saf et y of t he of f i cer s or ot her s, and

whet her he i s act i vel y r esi st i ng ar r est or at t empt i ng t o evade ar r est

by f l i ght . Ar pi n v. Sant a Cl ar a Val l ey Tr ansp. Agency, 261 F. 3d 912,

2 To t he ext ent t hat Pl ai nt i f f pur por t s t o st at e a cl ai m f orexcessi ve f or ce under t he Ei ght h Amendment , t he cl ai m i s i nsuf f i ci ent .The Four t h Amendment set s t he appl i cabl e const i t ut i onal l i mi t at i ons ont he t r eat ment of an ar r est ee det ai ned wi t hout a war r ant up unt i l t het i me such ar r est ee i s r el eased or f ound t o be l egal l y i n cust ody basedupon pr obabl e cause f or t he arr est . Pi er ce v. Mul t nomah Count y,Or egon, 76 F. 3d 1032, 1043 ( 9t h Ci r . 1996) ; see Lol l i v. Count y of

Or ange, 351 F. 3d 410, 415 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) . An excessi ve- f or ce cl ai mt hat ar i ses i n t he cont ext of an ar r est i s pr oper l y char act er i zed as onei nvoki ng t he pr ot ect i ons of t he Four t h Amendment . Norse v. Ci t y ofSant a Cr uz, 629 F. 3d 966, 978 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) ( en banc) , cer t . deni ed,132 S. Ct . 112 ( 2011) ( ci t i ng Gr aham v. Connor , 490 U. S. 386, 394( 1989) ) .

4



19/22


20/22


21/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. Discovery of Doe Defendants

Pl ai nt i f f st at es t hat he does not know t he names of t he of f i cer s

who al l egedl y appl i ed excessi ve f or ce dur i ng hi s ar r est . ( Compl ai nt at

3) . Pl ai nt i f f i s ent i t l ed t o conduct di scover y t o obt ai n t hi s

i nf ormat i on. See Wakef i el d v. Thompson, 177 F. 3d 1160, 1163 ( 9t h Ci r .

1999) ( [ W] her e t he i dent i t y of t he al l eged def endant i s not known pr i or

t o t he f i l i ng of a compl ai nt , t he pl ai nt i f f shoul d be gi ven an

oppor t uni t y t hr ough di scover y t o i dent i f y t he unknown def endant s, unl ess

i t i s cl ear t hat di scover y woul d not uncover t he i dent i t i es, or t hat t he

compl ai nt woul d be di smi ssed on ot her gr ounds. ) ( al t er at i ons omi t t ed)( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t aut hor i zes

Pl ai nt i f f t o submi t i nt er r ogat or i es t o t he Ci t y of San Lui s Obi spo t o

det ermi ne t he names of t he Def endants. Plaintiffs discovery shall be

served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31, a copy of which

is attached to this Order. Pl ai nt i f f must l i mi t t he scope of any

di scover y r equest t o t he i dent i f i cat i on of t he f ul l names of unknown

l aw enf or cement of f i cer s r ef er enced i n the Compl ai nt . ( Compl ai nt at 3) .

The Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt must r ef l ect t he f i r st and l ast names of t he

Doe Def endant s. Fur t hermore, t he capt i on of t he Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt

must l i st al l Def endant s agai nst whom cl ai ms ar e rai sed and must not

l i st any per sons or ent i t i es who ar e not t he subj ect of a cl ai m.

IV.

CONCLUSION

I f Pl ai nt i f f st i l l wi shes to pur sue t hi s act i on, he i s gr ant ed

f or t y- f i ve (45) days f r om t he dat e of t hi s Memor andum and Or der wi t hi n

7



22/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

whi ch t o conduct di scover y t o l ear n t he names of t he Doe Def endant s and

f i l e a Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt , cur i ng t he def ect s i n t he Compl ai nt

descr i bed above. Thi s means t hat Pl ai nt i f f must i ni t i at e di scover y

i mmedi at el y, wi t hout f ur t her del ay. The Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt , i f

any, shal l be compl et e i n i t sel f and shal l bear bot h t he desi gnat i on

Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt and t he case number assi gned t o t hi s act i on.

I t shal l not r ef er i n any manner t o t he or i gi nal Compl ai nt . I t shal l

avoi d i ncl usi on of "Doe" par t i es, but must i nst ead i dent i f y def endant s

by t hei r pr oper names.

Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file a

First Amended Complaint, or failure to correct the deficiencies

described above, will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff is further advised that, if he does not wish

to pursue this action, he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a notice

of dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(a)(1). A sample notice is attached to this order as well.

DATED: Mar ch 3, 2014.

/ S/ALKA SAGARUNI TED STATES MAGI STRATE J UDGE

8


josey richard meche claim and dismissal

Documents