1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JAMES P. RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 2:24-cv-08079-MCS (GJS)

12 Plaintiff ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 v.

14 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On September 9, 2024, Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, 19 submitted a Complaint pursuant to

. [Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”)]. The 20 Complaint seeks monetary damages against a governmental agency. On December 21 2 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of the 22 full filing fee. [Dkt. 5.] 23 Under

(e)(2) and 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), 24 federal courts are required to screen prisoner complaints and dismiss them if they 25 are determined to be frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may 26 be granted, or seek relief against a defendant who is immune from suit. See 27 Hebrard v. Nofziger,

(9th Cir. 2024); Lopez v. Smith, 203 28 1

, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“It is also clear that section 1915(e) 2 not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis 3 complaint that fails to state a claim.”). Screening “dismissals for failure to state a 4 claim are obligatory, even if the court raised the legal basis for the dismissal sua 5 sponte.” Hebrard,

. If the above-noted defects in a complaint are 6 found to exist “at any time,” the Court is required to dismiss the complaint even if 7 some or all of the filing fee has been paid.

(e)(2). 8 On December 4, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish issued 9 a screening order based upon her review of the Complaint pursuant to the above- 10 noted standards. [Dkt. 6, “Screening Order.”] The Screening Order found that the 11 Complaint suffers from several defects. One defect is procedural in nature, namely, 12 a failure to clearly identify the Defendants who are being sued. The other defects 13 are substantive and prevent the Complaint from stating a claim upon which relief 14 can be granted, namely: a failure to satisfy the requirements of Monell v. Dep’t of 15 Social Services,

(1978), for suing a municipal entity and/or a 16 municipal entity employee in his official capacity; and a failure to allege adequate 17 facts to state a claim against any Defendant and to plead the required causation as to 18 one of the Defendants. The Screening Order advised Plaintiff of his options in light 19 of Magistrate Judge Standish’s conclusions and directed him to respond by January 20 3, 2025. In addition, the Screening Order warned Plaintiff that a failure to respond 21 in a timely manner could result in a dismissal of this case. 22 It is now over a month past Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the Screening 23 Order and he has neither responded nor sought an extension of time to do so. The 24 Court has reviewed the Screening Order and agrees with its conclusions as to the 25 Complaint’s defects. Because of these defects, the Complaint fails to state a claim 26 upon which relief can be granted, and thus, the above-noted screening provisions 27 require its dismissal. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, pursuant to

(e)(2) and 1915A(b), this action 1s 2 || dismissed without prejudice. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4a 6 || DATED: February 4, 2025 Lorn 7 8 MARC C. SCARSI 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 |! Presented by: 11 12 | { WZ | 13 || GAIL J. STANDISH 14 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28