1

2

3

4

5

6

1

B

9

10

11

72

13

T4

1trIJ

76

71

1B

19

20

27

22

23

24

25

26

21

2B

ase 2:13-cv-C0il3il-OD\Ar-C\rr Drcumer:l 24 Fii+iJ 01i2 iil"X Peqe 7 *17 P*ge l{) :: j 7$

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIEORNTA

OLTVER B MITCHELL, l No. CV 13-6030-ODW(CW)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDERDISMISS]NG COMPLA]NTWTTH T,EAVE TO AMENDV.

U.S. DEP'T OF^teL dL. t

VETERANS AFFAIRS)

De fendant s

Plaintiff Oliver B. Mitchell, III opened this action with a

request to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee dated and

filed August 16, 2013. [Docket no. 1.] Leave to file was granted and

Plaintlff's Complaint was filed September 26, 2013. IDocket no. 3.]

Plaintiff is appearing pro se and seeking to proceed in forma

pauperis, oD a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. S 1983. For

reasons stated below, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

STA}iIDARD OE' REVIEW

Complaints such as Plaintiff's are sub;ect to the court's sua

sponte review under provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of

Plarnt

I1,

iff,

1

2

a-)

4

5

6

1

B

9

10

11

72

13

74

15

L6

t1

1B

19

20

27

22

23

24

25

26

21

2B

ass 2.1"3-cv-00il30-CDW-CU", D*cumei:t 2,j f:tr*tJ *1l2LlL4 7a*.* ? *t 7 Pare lD +:l7S

1995 ("PLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, i10 Stat. 7321 (1996). See 2B

U.S.C. S 1915A(a). The court shall dlsmiss such a complaint, dt any

time, tf the court finds that 1t (1) is frj-volous or malicious, (2)

fails to state a cfaim on which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. See Lopez

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 7122, 1126-27 and n.-l (9th Cir. 2400) (en banc); 28

U.S.C. S 1915 (e) (2) (B) (in forma pauperis complaints).

"A c]aim is 'frivol-ous'when it is without 'basis in law or

facL,'and'mallcious'when it is 'fi1ed with the intention or desire

to harm another."' Knapp v. Hogan, No. 11-11572, F.3d. _t 2013

WL 6801005, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 2f , 2A73) (quoting Ancirews v. King,

398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Clr. 2005) ). "Failure to state a claim" has

the same meaning on PLRA review that it has in review of a motion to

dismiss under Fed. R. Civ- P. 72(b) (5). Knapp, id. (citing Moore v.

Maricopa Countv Sheriff's Office, 657 F.3d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 2011) ).A Rule 12(b) (5) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim "'tests

the legal sufficiency of a claim."' Conservation Force v. Salazar,

646 F.3d i240, 7242 (9th Cir. 207L) (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 tr.3d

1ta '111 /o+Ia Cir. 2001)). Dismissaf for failure to state a claim mayt LJ, t JL \ /L11

be based on "'lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of

sufficient facts afleged under a cognizable 1ega1 theory. "'Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 1242 (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica

Po]ice Dep't, 907 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). A complaint may

also be dlsmissed for failure to state a claim if it discloses a fact

or complete defense that will necessarily defeat the claim. Franklin

v. Murphv, J45 F.2d 7227, 7228-29 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing 2A Moore's

Federal Practice !1 12.08).

To survive review for failure to state a claim, a complaint must

1

2

3

4

5

6,

1

B

9

10

11

l2

13

L4

15

76

t1

1B

t9

20

27

22

23

24

25

1.6

21

2B

ilse 2.13*cv-C603C-CD\&J-CW ilccuiner'lt 24 Filed CL;Z1"11""{ ?aqe 3 *f 7 Page lls =.L77

al1ege facts sufficlent "'to state a facially plausrbfe claim to

re1ief."' Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 7242 (quoting Shrover v.

New Cinsular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, lA47 (9th

Cir.2010)). The Ninth Circuit has surTrmarized the standard as foffows:

A complaint rs properly dismrssed under Rule 12(b) (6) unless

j-t contains "enough facts to state a clalm to relief that is

pJ-ausible on its face." Coto Settlement v. Elsenberq, 593

F.3d 1031, 7034 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 69't, 129 S. Ct. 1931 , ll3 L. Ed. 2d 868

(2009) ). Well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as

true, but conclusory statements or "bare asse::tions" are

discounted. See Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1702,

1108 (9th Cir-2012); see afso Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 68l, \29 S.

cr. 1931 .

Recinto v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, J06 F.3d 111),,7111 (9th

(.tr. ,/\) 1)-

If a complaint fails this review, a court rnay dismiss it with or

without leave to amend. Lopez , 243 tr.3d at 1126-30. Leave to amend

shoufd be granted if it appears that defects can be corrected,

especially if a pJ-aintiff is appearing pro se. Id. at 1130-31. If

after careful consideration, it is cfear that a complarnt cannot be

cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without feave to amend. See

Cato v. United States , J0 F.3d 1103, 1107-11 (9th Cir. 1995) .

PLAINTIFF' S AILEGATIONS AI{D CI,AIMS

Plaintiff names as defendants the United States Department of

Veterans Affairs ("VA"), Eric K. Shinseki (VA Secretary), Donna Beiter

(Director, VA Medical Center, West Los Angeles), and Lisa K. Holliday(General Counsel, VA Medical Center, West Los Angeles). Defendants

I

a

3

4

5

6

1

B

9

10

11

12

13

L4

15

L6

71

]B

19

20

27

22

23

24

25

26

21

2B

ase 2:i 3-rv-fifiC3C-OD\ti/-CW D*cumer:t 24 Filed Cl"12l-ll"a Pacre 4 *t 7 lf,ace lD =.1?8

Beiter and Holliday are explicj-t1y named in both official and

indivldual capacities. Plaintiff makes lengthy but vague allegations

that the VA and VA employees have harassed him in numerous ways,

viofating his federal civil rights under 42 U.S.C. S 1983 and other

statutes. He seeks monetary damages. tCpt. l

DEFECTS IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPI,AINT

To state a federal civil rights claim rrnder 42 U.S.C. S 1983, a

plaintiff must plead: (1) that a defendant acted under cofor of state

lawi and (2) that the defendant caused the plaintiff to be deprived of

a right secured by the federal constitution or laws. Johnson v.

Knowles, 113 f.3d 1174, 1117 (9th Cir. 1991). The pJ-aintiff must set

forth factual allegations with sufficient particufarlty to glve a

defendant "fair notice of the type of cfaim bei-ng pursued." Crtez v.

Washington County, BB F.3d 804, 810 (9th Cir. 1996).

Here, Plaintiff's S 1983 claims are asserted against a federal

agency and three of its employees. However, a federal agency and

federal employees acting under color of federal faw are not persons

acting under color of state faw who may be sued under 42 U - S. C.

S 1983. See. e.q., Billinqs v. United States, 5'/ tr.3d'/9'7, 801 (9th

Cir.1995) ("S 1983 provides no cause of action against federal agents

acting under color of federaf law."); Agra v. Franco, No. CV

72-7055-SJO(DTB), 201-3 WL 7100913, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2013)

(citing Billings). Accordingly, al.l of Plaintiff's S 1983 claims are

subject to dismissal on PLRA screening.r

r Pl-aintiff also attempts to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. SS1981, 7982, 1985, 7986, and 1988. Sections 1981 and 7982 apply tointentionaf racial discrimination in regard to contract (S 1981) orproperty (S l.982) rights, and do not require action under color of

(continued... )

1

)

3

4

5

€,

1

B

9

10

11

l2

13

l4

15

t6

71

1B

79

20

2l

22

23

24

afL)

26

21

2B

a.ce 2:i3-cv-S6il3*-ilD\4i-C\tr *acumer:t 24 Fiied *1"121114 Pagle 5 *f 7 Fage lD :.17?

A plaintiff may bring a claim for damages against a federal

agent, acting under color of federal 1aw, for violatinq federal

constitutional rights, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 4A3 U.S. 3BB, 9l S. Ct. 7999, 29 L. Ed.

?,d 6\9 (1971). However, a Blvens action cannot be brought against a

federal agency or a federal agent named in an official capacity. FDIC

v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 417, 486, 774 S. Ct. 996, 121 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1994)

(no Bivens cfaim against federal agency); Conseio de Desarrollo

Economico de Mexicali v. United States , 482 F.3d 1157 , 77'7 3 (9th Cir.

2001 ) (no Bivens action against federal agent in an official capacity).

Therefore, Plaintiff's complaint cannot be amended to state a Bivens

claim against the VA or any VA employee in an official capacity.

A Bivens claim may be stated for a constitutional violation under

color of federal law by a federal agent named in an individual

capacity. Consejo, 482 F.3d at 1173. An individual capacity claim rs

based on what the individual defendant allegedJ-y did or failed to do,

(. . . continued)-+-+^ I -,, C'.sLdLe rdw. )eC_,_-_C-_g. , General Building Contractors Ass'n v.pennsvlvanial 458 u.s. 3'/5, 3gt, to2 s. ct. 3141, J3 L. Ed. 2d 835(1982) (S 1981); Shaare Tefile Conqregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615, 611,107 S. Ct. 2019, 95 L. Ed. 2d 594 (1987) (S 7982). Plaintiff's factualallegations do not support such claims. Section 1985 requires a claimof conspiracy to deny a person equal protection of the laws, andrequ-ires a racial or other Iimited class-based discrimrnation. SeeGriffin v. Breckenridqe, 403 U.S. BB, 702-03, 9I S. Ct. 1190, 29 L.Ed. 2d 338 (1971). Section S 1986 authorizes a claim for failure toprevent a conspiracy that would have been actionable under S 1985, anda S 1986 cl-aim can only be stated when a complaint also contains avalid S 1985 claim. See, e.9., Karim-Panahi v. Los Anqeles PoliceDep't , 839 F.2d 627, 626 (9th Cir. 19BB). Plaintiff's allegations donot support such claims. Section 19BB provides that a prevailingparty in a civil rights action under one of these sections may obtainattorneys fees. See, e.9., Sole v. Wvner, 551 U.S.f4, Jf,721 S. Ct.2188, 76'l L. Ed. 2d 1069 (2001). Here, however, Plalntiff is not aprevailing party on such a cause of action.

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

B

9

10

11

l2

13

74

15

l611

1B

19

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

21

2B

ase 2:13-cir-CC,il3il-()D\A/"CV'J {}{Lt:rt*crtt 24 Frled ill-/21t1"4 Page {> *f 7 Page lD;: 18C

whrie an official capacrty cfaim ]s based sole1y on a defendant's

official positron. See, e.q., Hafer v. Mefo, 502 U.S. 21, 25-26, 112

S. Ct. 358, 116 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1991) . Here, Plaintiff has not alleged

any indivldual actions by Defendants Shinseki or Beiter. Accordi,ngly,

Plaintiff's complaint cannot be amended to state a Bivens claim

against Shinseki or Beiter.

Plaintiff has made allegations about individual acts by Defendant

Hol1iday, but his factual allegations, ds they stand, do not show that

Defendant Hollrday violated any of hls constitutional rights. On the

other hand, Plaintiff might be able successfully to amend his

compJ,aint, consistently with his factual allegations, to state a

Bivens claim against Defendant Holliday. In light of the liberal

pollcy toward amendment of pro se pleadings, Plaintiff w111 be given

leave to amend his complaint to state a Bivens claim, for violation of

a federal constitutional right, against Defendant HclJ-iday in an

indlvidual capacity only.

rV. ORDERS:

It is therefore ORDERED as follows:

1. The Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

2. Within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Memorandum and

Order, Plaintiff may file a "First Amended Complaint" which corrects

the defects discussed above and complies with these requirements:/-\ml--\\r:--(d/ lrre rrrst Amended Complaint" must bear the present case number

"cv 13-5030-oDW (CW) . "

(b) It must be complete in itself and may not incorporate by

reference any part of any prior complaint.(c) Plaintiff may not use "et aL." in the caption, but must clearly

name each defendant against whom a claim is stated in the First

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

B

9

10

11

l2

13

74

15

76

71

1B

t9

20

2l

?,2

23

24

25

26

21

ZO

ase 2.1-3-cv-*603il-*D\ry-C\Ai **cr."rn:e i:t 24 p;;*5 n11ll/i-1 Fage 7 of 7 Fa-qe lD -.181

AnLended Complarnt. (The cl-erk uses the caption to make sure that

defendants are correctly listed on the docket.)

(d) Plaintiff may not add new partles without the court's permission.

3. If Plaintiff fries an amended complaint, the court wl11

issue further orders as appropriate; rf not, the magistrate judge will

recommend that this action be dlsmlssed, without prejudrce, for

failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders, BS well as for

the reasons stated above.

4. The clerk shall serve this Memorandum and Order on

Plaintiff.

DATE: January 27, 2014

fu@m.e@CARLA M. WOEHRLE

United States Maoistrate Judoe