Robinson v. LAPD
| Decision Date | 25 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CV 12-0126-TJH (RNB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | ERIC ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. LAPD, et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiff named ten individuals as defendants, including Craig Robinson ("Craig"), identified by plaintiff as his brother. The other defendants all appeared to be police officers with different police departments or members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. All defendants were named in their individual as well as their official capacities.
As best the Court could glean from the allegations of the Complaint, thegravamen of plaintiff's claim(s) arose from plaintiff's arrest after plaintiff's brother called 911 to report that plaintiff had threatened Craig and his mother. Plaintiff appeared to indicate that his arrest resulted in his conviction pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 422 for making a criminal threat. Plaintiff stated that he was sentenced to 13 years and 8 months in state prison. Plaintiff purported to be seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
In accordance with the terms of the "Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995" ("PLRA"), the Court thereafter screened the Complaint prior to ordering service, for purposes of determining whether the action was frivolous or malicious; or failed to state a claim on which relief might be granted; or sought monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(l). The Court also considered whether the allegations of the Complaint complied with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
After careful review and consideration of the allegations of the Complaint under the relevant standards, the Court found that its allegations failed to contain a short and plain statement of plaintiff's claims, did not give each defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claims were or the grounds upon which they rested, and were insufficient to state any federal civil rights claim on which relief might be granted against any named defendant.
Accordingly, on March 29, 2012, the Court issued an Order dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend. If plaintiff still desired to pursue this action, he was ordered to file a First Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days remedying the deficiencies discussed in the dismissal order.
Following an extension of time, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") herein on May 21, 2012. Although it appears from plaintiff's allegations that the gravamen of his claims remains essentially the same, this time plaintiff only has named four defendants/groups of defendants in the section of the civil rights complaint form where the plaintiff is supposed to list the defendants. One of the fournamed defendants appears to be a police officer; the others appear to be members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. All four defendants/groups of defendants are named in their individual as well as their official capacities. (See FAC at 3-4.) Although plaintiff's brother is not one of the four named defendants, plaintiff's allegations appear to include allegations and claims against his brother. (See FAC at first page 5, second page 5, and third page 5.) Moreover, the relief sought by plaintiff includes, in addition to compensatory damages and punitive damages, the arrest of plaintiff's brother. Plaintiff also purports to be seeking the firing of various law enforcement individuals, the retirement of the two judges involved with his criminal case, the expungement of his conviction, his placement in federal protective custody, and an FBI investigation. (See FAC at first page 6 and second page 6.)
In accordance with the terms of the PLRA, the Court now has screened the FAC 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), 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(l).
The Court's screening of the FAC under the foregoing statutes is governed by 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). In determining whether the FAC 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). Further, since plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Court must construe the allegations of the FAC 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). However, "the liberal pleading standard ...applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations." Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). "[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled." Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). Moreover, with respect to plaintiff's pleading burden, the Supreme Court has held that See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (internal citations omitted, alteration in original); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) .
The Court also has considered whether the allegations of the FAC comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Further, Rule 8(d)(1) provides: "Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." As the Supreme Court has held, Rule 8(a) "requires a 'showing,' rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief." See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. Although the Court must construe a pro se plaintiff's pleadings liberally, plaintiff nonetheless must allege a minimum factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. United States Dep't of theNavy, 66 F.3d 193,199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795,798 (9th Cir. 1991). If plaintiff fails to clearly and concisely set forth allegations sufficient to provide defendants with notice of which defendant is being sued on which theory and what relief is being sought against them, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8. See, e.g., McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996); Nevijel v. Northcoast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981). Moreover, failure to comply with Rule 8(a) constitutes an independent basis for dismissal of a complaint that applies even if the claims in a complaint are not found to be wholly without merit. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179; Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 673.
After careful review and consideration of the allegations of the FAC under the relevant standards, the Court finds, for the reasons discussed hereafter, that plaintiff's allegations still fail to contain a short and plain statement of plaintiff's claims, do not give each defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claims are or the grounds upon which they rest, and are insufficient to state any federal civil rights claim on which relief may be granted against any named defendant.
A. Plaintiff's allegations again fail to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
Like the Complaint, the FAC fails to set forth a minimum factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair notice of the number of claims plaintiff is purporting to raise against each defendant, the factual basis for each claim, the legal basis for each claim, and which claims plaintiff is purporting to raise against which defendant. Like the Complaint, the FAC does not set forth separate claims, but rather purports to allege only one claim against all defendants.
Like the Complaint, the FAC consists of rambling, repetitious, confusing, and disjointed factual allegations. It appears to the Court that plaintiff may be describing facts that pertain to several potential civil rights claims arising from plaintiff's arrestthat occurred following a 911 call made by plaintiff's brother,...
To continue reading
Request your trial