Brown v. Hoops
| Decision Date | 02 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. EDCV 11-1808-CAS (DTB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | RONNIE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. ROD HOOPS, et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiff, while a prisoner at the West Valley Detention Center located in Rancho Cucamonga, California, lodged for filing a pro se complaint on November 2, 2011, in the Southern District of California. On November 7, 2011, the matter was transferred to the Central District of California, Eastern Division. On November 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees With Declaration in Support. On November 16, 2011, the Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff's Complaint was filed in this action on November 16, 2011.
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Action, a prisoner shall not be authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) to commence an action or proceedingwithout payment of the full filing fee if such prisoner "has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action ... that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Court has independently reviewed its docket and has ascertained that plaintiff has previously filed numerous federal lawsuits, and that in at least four (4) of these prior cases, the Court has dismissed plaintiff's actions on the grounds that the complaint was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Specifically, the Court has ascertained the following: (1) In Ronnie O'Neal Brown v. Lerov Baca, et al., CV07-819-CAS (DTB) plaintiff, while detained at California State Prison - Folsom, lodged for filing this action. After plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint, the action was dismissed for failure to state a claim by Judgment dated January 15, 2010, whereby the District Judge adopted the findings of the Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim (see Exhibit "A" attached hereto); (2) in Ronnie O. Brown v. Dept. Adult Parole Operations, et al., EDCV08-11 -UA (JWJ) plaintiff, while detained at California Institution for Men - Chino, lodged for filing this action. On January 31, 2008, plaintiff was denied in forma pauperis status on the grounds that the claims in the complaint were legally and/or factually patently frivolous (see Exhibit "B" attached hereto) (see also O'Neal v. Price. 531 F.3d 1146, 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (); (3) in Ronnie O. Brown v. County of San Bernardino Alternative Defense Panel.et al. EDCV08-1295-UA (JWJ) plaintiff, while a state prisoner at North Kern State Prison, lodged for filing this action. On October 6, 2008, plaintiff was denied in forma pauperis status on the grounds that the claims in the complaint were legally and/or factually patently frivolous (see Exhibit "C" attached hereto) (see also O'Neal 531 F.3d at 1155); and (4) in Ronnie O. Brown v. Lee Baca, et al.. CV08-6311-UA (JWJ) plaintiff, alsowhile a state prisoner at North Kern State Prison, lodged for filing this action. On October 3, 2008, plaintiff was denied in forma pauperis status on the grounds that the claims in the complaint were legally and/or factually patently frivolous (see Exhibit "D" attached hereto) (see also O'Neal, 531 F.3d at 1155)
As referenced above, in each of the cases cited herein, plaintiff alleged that he was incarcerated at the time each of the actions referenced herein were filed.
Accordingly, on or before February 17,2012, plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause as to why the order granting him in forma pauperis status in this matter should not be vacated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and that the action dismissed without prejudice pending payment of the full filing fee of $350.00.
___________
DAVID T. BR1STOW
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RONNIE O. BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
LEROY BACA, et al., Defendants.
Case No. CV 07-8I9-CAS (DTB)
JUDGMENTPursuant to the Order Adopting Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge,
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted and Judgment be entered dismissing this action without leave to amend and with prejudice.
v.
LEROY BACA, et al., Defendants.
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Christina A. Snyder, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Plaintiff, a California prisoner presently incarcerated at the California State Prison in Lancaster, filed this pro se civil rights action on February 7, 2007, after being granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As best the Court can glean from plaintiff's allegations, the gravamen of plaintiff's claims is that he was denied medication and/or medical treatment for approximately 28 days while plaintiff temporarily was being detained by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department ("LACSD"). Plaintiff alleges that, as a result, he suffered severe brain damage.
On July 17, 2009, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), the operative pleading herein. On July 27, 2009, the matter was transferred to this Court's calendar. In the TAC, plaintiff purports to name as defendants the County of Los Angeles, Sheriff Leroy Baca, and J. McKoun. The only defendant, however, who has been served herein is Sheriff Baca. Plaintiff purports to raise four claims against unspecified defendants: (1) the denial of adequate medical treatment pursuant to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments1; (2) denial of procedural due process pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment in connection with LACSD policies regarding prisoner requests for medical care and the filing of grievances; (3) the denial of plaintiff's "right to be heard by prison grievance" purportedly pursuant to the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; and (4) the denial of accommodation for plaintiff's blindness pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiff seeks only compensatory and punitive damages.
On July 28, 2009, defendant Sheriff Baca filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) together with an unenumerated Rule 12(b) Motion with respect to the issue of exhaustion ("Motion"). The Motion is accompanied by a Memorandum of Points and Authorities ("Motion Mem.") and a Declaration of Deputy Christina Shilinga ("Decl. Shilinga") with attached exhibits. Defendant contends that the TAC should be dismissed for the following reasons: (a) plaintiff has failed to allege Sheriff Baca's involvment in the claimed constitutional violations; (b) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for some of his claims; and (c) plaintiff cannot state a claim pursuant to the ADA. Plaintiff filed a 48-page opposition ("Opp.") onSeptember 11, 2009,2 accompanied by plaintiff's declaration and attached exhibits pertaining to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Defendants filed a reply thereto on September 25, 2009.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court now recommends that the Motion be granted, and that the TAC be dismissed without leave to amend.
A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699(9th Cir. 1990). Since plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Court must construe the allegations of the Complaint liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Further, in determining whether the Complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, its allegations of material fact must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. See Love v. United States. 915 F.2d 1242,1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Moreover, with respect to plaintiff's pleading burden, the Supreme Court has held that: Bell Atlantic Corp. v.Twombly. 550 U.S. 544,555,127 S. Ct. 1955,1964-65,167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (internal citations omitted, alteration in original); see also Lazv Y Ranch LTD v. Behrens. 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008) ).
I. plaintiff's TAC still fails to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment against the LACSD. Sheriff Baca, or defendant McKoun.
In his TAC, plaintiff alleges the following facts pertaining to his claim that defendants allegedly provided inadequate medical care: (1) "plaintiff was denied adequate medical care, and care to treat a handicapp [sic] legally blind person requiring grooming, feeding, bathing, and clothing assistance while detained by defendant Baca" (TAC at 5); (2) plaintiff was "denied medical treatment" (TAC at 6, 7); (3) Sheriff Baca "received plaintiff into his custody" and "was advised by [the] California Department...
To continue reading
Request your trial