Robert Damon Epps v. LAC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 6, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-02593
StatusUnknown

This text of Robert Damon Epps v. LAC (Robert Damon Epps v. LAC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robert Damon Epps v. LAC, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:21-cv-02593-ODW-KES Date: April 6, 2021

Title: ROBERT DAMON EPPS v. LAC

PRESENT:

THE HONORABLE KAREN E. SCOTT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Jazmin Dorado Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS: None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): Order Dismissing Complaint (Dkt. 1) with Leave to Amend

I. BACKGROUND Robert Damon Epps (“Plaintiff”), an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”) who is proceeding pro se,1 filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (“Complaint” at Dkt. 1.) The Complaint requests assignment to a single cell based on the following factual allegations: I’m in prison for a sex offense and on 12/27/07, 4/2/14, [and] 4/2/19[,] I was attacked by another prisoner because I can’t show paperwork. My mental health diagnosis is schizoaffective disorder and one of my symptoms is paranoia. [¶] On 1/1/18, CDCR made the EOP [Enhanced Outpatient Program] ... non- designated meaning SNY [Special Needs Yard] and GP [General Population] prisoners living together[.] [B]y this new rule I fear for my safety and I’m paranoid to be in the cell with anyone[,] but the appeals coor[dinator] stated that if I’m ever placed in a cell with someone who ask[s] to see my paperwork to inform custody[.] [B]ut by this time it might be to[o] late. Please note I was single cell

1 “Pro se” means without the assistance of a lawyer. CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:21-cv-02593-ODW-KES Date: April 6, 2021 Page 2

status from 2006 [un]til 2012. (Compl. at 5.)2 The only Defendant named in the Complaint is “LAC.” (Compl. at 1, 3-4.) The Court interprets this as referring to California State Prison-Los Angeles County, the prison where Plaintiff is currently housed. (Id. at 1); CDCR Inmate Locator, https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court must screen any “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or employee of a governmental entity.” The Court must dismiss the complaint if it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Court has reviewed the Complaint and, as explained more fully below, finds that it fails to state a claim against Defendant LAC. The Complaint is therefore dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. II. LEGAL STANDARD A complaint may fail to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack of cognizable legal theory, or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (as amended). In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, its allegations of material fact must be taken as true and interpreted in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, where the plaintiff is appearing pro se, the court must construe the allegations of the complaint liberally and must afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). However, the liberal pleading standard only applies to a plaintiff’s factual allegations. “[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). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do .… Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level … on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)[.]” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

2 In quoting from the pro se Complaint, the Court has amended spelling and grammatical errors where Plaintiff’s meaning is clear. CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:21-cv-02593-ODW-KES Date: April 6, 2021 Page 3

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). If the Court finds that a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the Court has discretion to dismiss it with or without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Id. at 1130-31; see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). III. ANALYSIS The Court interprets the Complaint as bringing a claim under the Eighth Amendment, which requires prison officials “to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (citation omitted). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met. First, the prisoner must show that the risk to him is “sufficiently serious” and that “he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 834. Second, the defendant must have a “sufficiently culpable state of mind” demonstrating “deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety....” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows a plaintiff to sue any “person” who violates his constitutional rights. Courts have held that a state and state prisons are not “persons” under § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989) (“a State is not a person within the meaning of § 1983”); Lucero v. Hensley, 920 F. Supp. 1067, 1076 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (“[T]o the extent plaintiff seek relief against CMC [the California Men’s Colony] . . . CMC is not a proper defendant.”). The Complaint currently fails to state a claim for relief for two reasons. First, the Complaint does not show that the risk of harm to Plaintiff is sufficiently serious.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens
546 F.3d 580 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Lucero v. Hensley
920 F. Supp. 1067 (C.D. California, 1996)
Cato v. United States
70 F.3d 1103 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Robert Damon Epps v. LAC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-damon-epps-v-lac-cacd-2021.