Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02504/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02504-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

F I LED 

. , 

DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SEAN W.C. WILEY, 

Booking No. 12539831, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY; SAN DIEGO 

COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; 

GEORGE BAILEY DETENTION FACILITY, 

Defendants. 

Civil No. 12cv2504 WQH (BGS) 

ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE 

TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 

Sean W. C. Wiley ("Plaintiff'), currently detained at George Bailey Detention Facility 

in San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil 

action [ECF No.4]; thus, while he is proceeding pro se, he is not proceeding informa pauperis 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, he has yet to effect service upon any party. See 

Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 757 (9th Cir. 1991) (absent a specific request and court order 

that the U.S. Marshal effect service on their behalf pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3), persons 

who prepay civil filing fees "remain[] responsible for timely service."); Omni Capital Int' I, Ltd. 

v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) ("Before a ... court may exercise personal 

J.\Everyone\~EFllE-PROSE\WQH\12cv2504-1915A.dsm.wpd 1 12cv2504 WQH (BGS) 

Case 3:12-cv-02504-WQH-BGS Document 5 Filed 01/29/13 Page 1 of 5
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be 

2 satisfied.") 

3 L 

4 SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and 28 U .S.C. § 1915A, the Court 

6 is obligated to review civil actions filed by anyone "incarcerated or detained in any facility who 

7 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the 

8 terms or conditions ofparole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program," "as soon as 

9 practicable after docketing" and regardless ofwhether the prisoner prepays filing fees or moves 

to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Because Plaintiff was a "prisoner" as defined 

11 by 28 U .S.C. § 1915A( c) at the time he filed this action, the Court must sua sponte dismiss his 

12 complaint, or any portion thereof, which "seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer 

13 or employee ofa governmental entity," ifit is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon 

14 which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 FJd 1002, 

1004 (9th Cir. 2010). 

16 "To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege two elements: (l)that 

17 a right secured by the Constitution or laws ofthe United States was violated; and (2) that the 

18 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." Campbell v. 

19 Washington Dep't ofSoc. Servs., 671 FJd 837,842 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Ketchum v. 

Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

21 Plaintiff alleges that the County of San Diego, the San Diego County Sheriffs 

22 Department, and the George Bailey Detention Facility acted with "negligence" and imposed 

23 "cruel and unusual punishments" upon him by failing to provide adequate medical treatment 

24 while he was detained at the Vista Detention Facility in June and July 2012, and again after he 

was hospitalized at UCSD and transferred to George Bailey in August 2012.1 (Compi. at 3.) 

26 

1 It is unclear whether Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee or whether he was serving a sentence 

27 following a criminal conviction at the time he was housed at the George Bailey Detention Facility. The 

28 Ninth Circuit has noted that while different Constitutional provisions may be applied dependent on 

whether a plaintiffs claim arise before or after conviction, a "pretrial detainees' rights under the 

Fourteenth Amendment are comparable to prisoners' rights under the Eighth Amendment," and 

I:\Everyone\_EFlLE·PROSEIWQHll2ev2S04·1915A·dsm.wpd 2 12cv2504 WQH (BGS) 

Case 3:12-cv-02504-WQH-BGS Document 5 Filed 01/29/13 Page 2 of 5
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

However, Plaintiff has failed to identify any specific "person" whom he holds responsible for 

violating his constitutional rights. Campbell, 671 F.3 at 842 n.5. Neither a law enforcement 

department (like the San Diego County Sheriffs Department), nor a jail or detention facility 

(like George Bailey Detention Facility) is considered a "person" subject to suit under § 1983. 

See Vance v. County o/Santa Clara, 928 F. Supp. 993, 996 (N.D. Cal. 1996) ("Naming a 

municipal department as a defendant is not an appropriate means ofpleading a § 1983 action 

against a municipality.")(citation omitted); Powell v. Cook County Jail, 814 F. Supp. 757, 758 

(N.D. Ill. 1993) ("Section 1983 imposes liability on any 'person' who violates someone's 

constitutional rights 'under color oflaw.' Cook County Jail is not a 'person.'). 

While the County of San Diego itselfmay be considered a "person" and therefore, a 

proper defendant under § 1983, see Monell v. Department o/Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 

(1978); Hammond v. County 0/Madera, 859 F .2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1988), as a municipality it 

may be held liable under § 1983 only where the Plaintiff alleges facts to show that a 

constitutional deprivation was caused by the implementation or execution of"apolicy statement, 

ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated" by the County. Monell, 

436 U.S. at 690; Board o/the County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 402-04 (1997); 

Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 714 (9th Cir. 1995). In other words, "respondeat superior and 

vicarious liability are not cognizable theories ofrecovery against a municipality." Miranda v. 

Clark County, Nevada, 279 F.3d 1102, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 2002). "Instead, a Monell claim exists 

only where the alleged constitutional deprivation was inflicted in 'execution ofa government's 

policy or custom.'" Id. (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). 

/ / / 

therefore, "the same standards apply." Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); but cf 

Gibson v. County ofWashoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 n.10 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that while the Court 

generally looks to Eighth Amendment cases when reviewing conditions of confinement claims raised 

by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment, "[i]t is quite possible ... that the protections 

provided pretrial detainees by the Fourteenth Amendment in some instances exceed those provided 

convicted prisoners by the Eighth Amendment."); see also Lolli v. County ofOrange, 351 F .3d 41 0,419 

n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1188 n.10). In either case, however, Plaintiffs claims 

of "negligence," even against a "person" subject to suit under § 1983, do not suffice. See Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 109 (1976) ("Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation 

merely because the victim is a prisoner."). 

I'\Everyonel_EFILE·PROSEIWQHI] 2cv2504·] 915A-dsm.wpd 3 12cv2504 WQH (BOS) 

Case 3:12-cv-02504-WQH-BGS Document 5 Filed 01/29/13 Page 3 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

As currently pleaded, Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b) because he has failed to allege any facts which "might plausibly suggest" that any 

individual County employee (a "person") violated his constitutional rights. See Hernandez v. 

County ofTulare, 666 FJd 631,637 (9th Cir. 2012) (applying Ashcroft v.Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 

(2009)'s pleading standards to Monell claims); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 

1978) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides for relief only against those who, through their personal 

involvement as evidenced by affinnative acts, participation in another's affinnative acts, or 

failure to perfonn legally required duties, cause the deprivation of plaintiffs constitutionally 

protected rights). Moreover, Plaintiff's Complaint further fails to contain "sufficient allegations 

of underlying facts" to show any individual acted pursuant to an official municipal policy, 

custom or practice. Hernandez, 666 F.3d at 637; Monell, 436 U.S. at 690; Brown, 520 U.S. at 

403. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a section 1983 claim 

upon which relief may be granted, and is therefore subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, however, the Court having now 

provided him with "notice of the deficiencies in his complaint," will also provide him an 

opportunity to "effectively" amend. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202,1212 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

II. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

For all the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint for 

failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b). 

However, Plaintiff is GRANTED forty five (45) days leave from the date ofthis Order 

to file an Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted above. 

Plaintiffs Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to his original 

pleading. See S.D. CAL. ClvLR 15.1. Defendants not named and any claim not re-alleged in the 

Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See Kingv. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,567 (9th Cir. 

I:\Everyonel_EFILE·PROSEIWQH\ 12cv2504· J9J5A-dsm. wpd 4 12cv2504 WQH (BGS) 

Case 3:12-cv-02504-WQH-BGS Document 5 Filed 01/29/13 Page 4 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1987). IfPlaintiff chooses not to re-open this case by submitting an Amended Complaint within 

45 days, the entire action shall remain dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and without 

any further Order issued by the Court. 

DATED: /dPdf 

I:lEveryonel_EFILE-PROSEIWQH\12cv2S04-191 SA-dsm.wpd 5 12cv2504 WQH (BGS) 

Case 3:12-cv-02504-WQH-BGS Document 5 Filed 01/29/13 Page 5 of 5