King v. Buy
| Decision Date | 22 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CV 18-01213 SVW (AFM) |
| Parties | KEVIN WILLIAM KING, Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
On February 14, 2018, plaintiff filed a Complaint in this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985. Plaintiff subsequently was granted leave in forma pauperis. The caption of the Complaint lists as defendants Best Buy; Jorge Solo, a manager at Best Buy; Customer Service Representative Sy at Best Buy; Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Deputies Lamar Johnson, C. Aguilar-Aldapa, Jr., and Sgt. Hicks. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) The body of the Complaint does not identify any defendants, and the Complaint is not signed.1 The Complaintarises from an incident on December 6, 2017, at a Best Buy store in Compton, California. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff subsequently was arrested. (Id. at 15.) The charges against him were dismissed sometime in January 2018. (Id. at 27.) Plaintiff purports to raise his Claim 1 and Claim 2 pursuant to state law (id. at 16, 28); his Claim 3 and Claim 4 are raised pursuant to the Fourth Amendment against Deputy Johnson for the excessive use of force and unreasonable arrest (id. at 30), his Claim 5 purports to raise a claim for conspiracy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 against Best Buy Manager Solo, Customer Service Representative Sy, and Deputy Johnson (id. at 34), and his Claim 6 and Claim 7 are raised pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment against Deputy Aguilar-Aldapa and Sgt. Hicks in connection with a disciplinary action against plaintiff while he was a detainee more than a week after the incident at the Best Buy store (id. at 36, 43).
The Court has screened the Complaint prior to ordering service for purposes of determining whether the action is frivolous or malicious; or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) applies to any action by a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Shirley v. Univ. of Idaho, 800 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127, n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) () (en banc).
The Court's screening of the pleading under the foregoing statute is governedby the following standards. 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); see also Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (). In determining whether the pleading 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). However, the "tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Nor is the Court "bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Wood v. Moss, 134 S. Ct. 2056, 2065 n.5 (2014) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Rather, a court first "discounts conclusory statements, which are not entitled to the presumption of truth, before determining whether a claim is plausible." Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel, 726 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2013). Then, "dismissal is appropriate where the plaintiff failed to allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Yagman v. Garcetti, 852 F.3d 859, 863 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted, emphasis added).
Further, since plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Court must construe the allegations of the pleading liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2008) () (alteration in original). However, the Supreme Court has held that Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted, alteration in original); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 .
Following careful review of the Complaint, the Court finds that the factual allegations in the Complaint appear insufficient to state any federal claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. See Rosati, 791 F.3d at 1039 () (internal quotation marks omitted).
If plaintiff desires to pursue this action, he is ORDERED to file a First Amended Complaint no later than thirty (30) days after the date of this Order, remedying the deficiencies discussed below. Further, plaintiff is admonished that, if he fails to timely file a First Amended Complaint, or fails to remedy the deficiencies of this pleading as discussed herein, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice.2
On December 6, 2017, plaintiff had $380 in his possession when he entered the Best Buy store. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff bought a Playstation 4 Console and exited the store with a receipt. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff reentered the Best Buy store approximately 20 minutes later to return the purchased Playstation 4 for a cash refund. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff spoke with Customer Service Representative Sy, who informed plaintiff that the box contained a Playstation 3 Console, which was an older and less expensive version. (Id. at 6-8.) The Customer Service Representative accused plaintiff of fraud and attempting to return a product that plaintiff had replaced in the Playstation 4 Console's box, which plaintiff denied. (Id. at 8-9.) Plaintiff asked to speak to the store manager, Jorge Solo, who listened to the employee before talking to plaintiff (id. at 10), and who refused plaintiff's demands for a refund or an exchange (id. at 10-11).
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Johnson arrived. (Id. at 11.) Deputy Johnson asked plaintiff to leave after talking to the manager. (Id. at 11-13.) Plaintiff "eventually exited the store after some protest." (Id. at 13.) Deputy Johnson spoke with the Customer Service Representative and the manager again before telling plaintiff that the manager wished to have plaintiff arrested. (Id. at 13-15.) Plaintiff said that an arrest "would probably result in the loss of plaintiff's personal property which plaintiff was under California Court Order to remove from a premises . . on or before December 6, 2017." (Id. at 14-15.) Deputy Johnson arrested plaintiff based on the information provided by the Best Buy storeemployees; plaintiff did not provide any information. (Id. at 15). Within his Claim 3, plaintiff also alleges that Deputy Johnson "physically attacked plaintiff by applying personal [sic] holds and twisting plaintiff's arms and fingers." Plaintiff did not attempt to resist arrest "until plaintiff began to experience pain in the plaintiff's arms and fingers and upper torso." (Id. at 31-32.)
Plaintiff attached exhibits to his Complaint and requests that the Court take judicial notice of the exhibits. (Id. at 15-16.) The Court denies plaintiff's request as unnecessary because any document that plaintiff attached to his Complaint is incorporated into the Complaint by reference. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) (); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1989) (). According to plaintiff's Exhibit 1, plaintiff was arrested based on information from Manager Solo and Customer Service Representative Sy that plaintiff was angry and aggressive toward Sy, appeared to have threatened Sy, and was causing a disturbance in the store. In addition, plaintiff used profanity and yelled at Deputy Johnson, and plaintiff refused to provide any information about the incident to the deputy. (ECF No. 1 at 47-51.)
In his Claim 5, plaintiff alleges that he is raising a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and he alleges that defendants "have...
To continue reading
Request your trial