(PC) Watson v. Sacramento County Sheriffs Office ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER P. WATSON, No. 2:22-cv-1681 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983, and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 20 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 23 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 24 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 25 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 26 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 27 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments 28 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These 1 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the 2 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(b)(2). 4 As set forth below, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 5 Screening Standards 6 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 7 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 8 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 9 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 11 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 12 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 13 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 14 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 15 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 16 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 17 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 18 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 19 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 20 1227. 21 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 22 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 23 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 24 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 25 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 26 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 27 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 28 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 1 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 2 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 3 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 4 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 5 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 6 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 7 Plaintiff’s Allegations 8 Plaintiff alleges that on May 18, 2020, officers from the Rancho Cordova Police 9 Department and the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office used malicious and sadistic force. 10 Plaintiff was pepper sprayed and could not see; he accidently touched a Sacramento County 11 Sheriff’s Deputy’s chest. At that time the Rancho Cordova Police Department officer or officers 12 grabbed plaintiff with violent force, slamming him to the ground. After plaintiff was handcuffed 13 and on the ground, officers from both departments repeatedly slammed plaintiff’s face into the 14 ground while punching him in the back of his head and kneeing him in the spine until plaintiff 15 lost consciousness. As a result, plaintiff was hospitalized from May 18 to 19, 2020. Plaintiff was 16 subsequently housed in the Sacramento County Main Jail medical housing unit and given 17 multiple CT scans for brain injuries. Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, money damages. 18 Discussion 19 Plaintiff claims the use of excessive force in violation of his constitutional rights. The 20 analysis of an excessive force claim brought pursuant to section 1983 begins with “identifying the 21 specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force.” Graham 22 v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989). The Fourth Amendment bars excessive force “in the course 23 of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen.” Id. at 395. In the Ninth 24 Circuit, the Fourth Amendment applies after arrest and until arraignment. Pierce v. Multnomah 25 Cty., 76 F.3d 1032, 1042 (9th Cir.1996). Because plaintiff had been arrested, but had yet to be 26 arraigned, the standard for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment applies to his claims. 27 To state an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege 28 that defendants use of force was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances 1 confronting the officers, without regard to the officer’s underlying intent or motivation. See 2 Graham, 490 U.S. at 397. The Court is to consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular 3 case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to 4 the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to 5 evade arrest by flight.” Id. at 396. The “reasonableness” of the force used in a particular case 6 “must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 7 vision of hindsight.” Id. 8 Here, plaintiff only names the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office and the Rancho 9 Cordova Police Department as defendants but includes no charging allegations as to such 10 defendants. Rather, plaintiff contends that on May 18, 2020, officers from such departments used 11 excessive force during plaintiff’s arrest. But plaintiff fails to identify a particular defendant 12 responsible for the wrongdoing.1 In order to state a federal civil rights claim against a specific 13 defendant, plaintiff must allege that each such defendant, while acting under color of state law, 14 deprived him of a right guaranteed under the Constitution or a federal statute. See West v. 15 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). While it appears plaintiff may be able to state a cognizable 16 excessive force claim against the specific officer or officers involved in the use of excessive 17 force, plaintiff must name the individual officer or officers responsible for such action. 18 Accordingly, plaintiff is provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint to address 19 such deficiency. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir.1987), superseded on 20 other grounds by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 21 Plaintiff is cautioned that although he is granted an opportunity to amend, it is not for the 22 purpose of adding new defendants or new claims. Rather, plaintiff should focus on naming the 23 defendants involved in the alleged use of excessive force on May 18, 2020. 24 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must allege in specific terms how 25 each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no 26 27 1 Plaintiff is advised that the court cannot service process on a defendant without his or her name. Plaintiff may be able to obtain the names of the arresting officers by requesting a copy of his 28 arrest report from May 18, 2020. 1 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a 2 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 3 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official 4 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 5 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 6 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 7 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 8 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 9 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 10 v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 11 supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 12 omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 13 function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 14 and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 15 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 17 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 18 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 20 Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 21 herewith. 22 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 23 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 24 Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 25 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 26 b. An original of the Amended Complaint. 27 Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 1 | also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 2 Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the 3 || dismissal of this action. 4 || Dated: October 21, 2022 Foci) Aharon 6 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 watsi68i.14n 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHRISTOPHER P. WATSON, No. 2:22-cv-1681 KJN P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT 13 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 14 OFFICE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 17 filed______________. 18 _____________ Amended Complaint 19 DATED: 20 ________________________________ 21 Plaintiff 22 23 24 25 26 27 28