Alexander-Campos v. Reinke ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT J. ALEXANDER-CAMPOS, Case No. 22-cv-05253-PJH 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 9 v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 10 BENJERMIN REINKE, et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 Plaintiff, a former detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 14 1983. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff filed an 15 amended complaint. 16 DISCUSSION 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners 19 seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 20 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and 21 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 22 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 23 relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 24 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement 26 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not 27 need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his 1 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 2 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 3 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough 4 facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The United States 5 Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While 6 legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by 7 factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should 8 assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an 9 entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 10 LEGAL CLAIMS 11 Plaintiff states that defendants violated his rights by assaulting him and then 12 having him arrested. 13 A claim of unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 for violation of the Fourth 14 Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure if the allegation is that 15 the arrest was without probable cause or other justification. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 16 U.S. 547, 555-558 (1967); Yousefian v. City of Glendale, 779 F.3d 1010, 1014, n.1. (9th 17 Cir. 2015) (absence of probable cause is essential element of § 1983 false arrest claim). 18 An arrest is supported by probable cause if, under the totality of the circumstances known 19 to the arresting officer, a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair 20 probability that the defendant had committed a crime. Luchtel v. Hagemann, 623 F.3d 21 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2010). 22 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right 23 secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged 24 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 25 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 26 Plaintiff alleges that he was at a car dealership when the owner of the dealership 27 attacked him and then held him until police arrived to arrest him. Plaintiff seeks damages 1 an unlawful arrest. 2 Plaintiff cannot proceed with a claim against the owner of the dealership. Plaintiff 3 has not shown that a federal right was violated or that the owner was acting under color 4 of state law. With respect to the police officer, plaintiff has not presented sufficient 5 allegations that the arrest was without probable cause. The amended complaint is 6 dismissed with leave to amend to provide more information regarding the unlawful arrest 7 claim. 8 Plaintiff should describe the circumstances that led to his arrest, and why the 9 arrest was not supported by probable cause. He should explain if he was arrested for 10 additional crimes other than attempted carjacking charge. He should also indicate if he 11 was charged by the district attorney. Plaintiff states that the charges were dropped, and 12 he is currently in custody for a probation revocation. He should describe why his 13 probation was revoked and if it relates to this incident. Plaintiff should also be clear if he 14 is alleging both unlawful arrest and excessive force against the police officer defendant. 15 If so, he must describe the actions of the police officer that demonstrate excessive force. 16 Plaintiff’s amended complaint was quite brief and did not entirely address the issues 17 raised by the court in the first screening order. Plaintiff should provide additional 18 information in a second amended complaint as discussed above. 19 CONCLUSION 20 1. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. A second 21 amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is 22 filed and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words 23 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint 24 completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he 25 wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may 26 not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. 27 2. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 1 “Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely 2 fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute 3 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: February 15, 2023 6 7 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27