Weston v. Deputy Sheriff 2549 ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 ANDRE D. WESTON, Case No. 24-cv-04213-VKD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 10 v. GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING MOTION FOR COURT 11 DEPUTY SHERIFF #2549, et al., ORDER 12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 5, 11 13 14 Pro se plaintiff Andre D. Weston, a state prisoner, California, filed a complaint under 42 15 U.S.C. § 1983 against a deputy and the Sheriff of Alameda County for an incident that took place 16 at Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, California. Dkt. No. 5. Mr. Weston’s motion for leave to proceed in 17 forma pauperis has already been granted. Dkt. Nos. 6, 9. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 The following facts are based on the allegations in Mr. Weston’s complaint. 20 Mr. Weston is currently confined at the Santa Rita Jail (“Jail”), where the underlying 21 incident took place. Dkt. No. 5 at 1. According to the complaint, on September 7, 2023, Mr. 22 Weston “got into it” with another inmate. Id. at 2. “Deputy Sheriff #2549” intervened and 23 ordered Mr. Weston to return to his cell. Id. at 2-3. Mr. Weston got permission to retrieve his 24 tablet from the charging port, and as he was returning to his cell, began complaining about having 25 to “lock it down” when he “didn’t do anything.” Id. at 3. Mr. Weston says that “Deputy #2549, 26 out of nowhere grabbed my left arm and slug me around 180 degree with massive force.” Id. He 27 asserts that this act deprived him of his right to be free from excessive force. Id. Mr. Weston 1 suffering associated with that injury. Id. 2 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 4 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915A(a). A court must dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it 6 determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief 7 may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 8 relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). In conducting its review, the court must identify any 9 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon 10 which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 11 relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, 12 particularly in civil rights cases. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 13 Cir. 1988); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003). 14 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 15 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 16 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 17 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 Mr. Weston has a plausible claim for relief under section 1983 based on his allegation of 20 excessive force against “Deputy #2549.” However, it is unclear whether Mr. Weston is a pretrial 21 detainee or a convicted prisoner. If he is a pretrial detainee, then the excessive force claim is 22 cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 23 (1989) (pretrial detainee protected from use of excessive force by due process clause of Fourteenth 24 Amendment). If he has been convicted, then the excessive force claim is cognizable under the 25 Eighth Amendment. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (excessive physical force 26 against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment). 27 Mr. Weston may amend his complaint to clarify his custody status so that the Court may 1 The complaint also names Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez as a defendant but alleges only that the 2 Sheriff was the “person in charge” at the time of the incident. Dkt. No. 5 at 2. However, the 3 Sheriff may not be held liable under section 1983 on the theory that, as a supervisor, she is 4 responsible for the actions or omissions of another. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th 5 Cir. 1989); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 6 1984). Rather, a supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal 7 involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the 8 supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 9 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012). 10 Mr. Weston shall be granted leave to file an amended complaint to attempt to state a claim 11 against Sheriff Sanchez. 12 IV. MOTION FOR COURT ORDER 13 Mr. Weston has filed a motion for a “court order to have full access to the law library etc. 14 etc. Santa Rita Co. Jail.” Dkt. No. 11. He asserts that his constitutional right of access to the law 15 library is being violated and he seeks an order requiring “hours and days set for full access use of 16 law library.” Id. at 1. 17 The Constitution does not guarantee a prisoner unlimited access to a prison law library. 18 Prison officials of necessity must regulate the time, manner, and place in which library facilities 19 are used. See Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir. 1985). For 20 example, the fact that a prisoner must wait for a turn to use the library does not necessarily mean 21 that he has been denied meaningful access to the courts. See id.; Myron v. Terhune, 457 F. 3d 996, 22 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2006) (California state regulation governing prison law library, pursuant to Cal. 23 Admin. Code Title 15 § 3120, does not create a due process liberty interest in law library access 24 hours). Accordingly, the motion is denied. 25 On the other hand, state regulations provide inmates with access to the prison law library 26 and a prisoner may apply for Priority Legal User (“PLU”) status. Title 15 of the California Code 27 of Regulations, § 3122 governs PLU status and states in relevant part: Status (PLU) to the prison law libraries. Inmates who are granted PLU status 1 based on their application shall receive higher priority to prison law library 2 resources than other inmates. All inmates who are not on PLU status are on General Legal User (“GLU”) status. 3 4 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3122(b). Accordingly, Mr. Weston may wish to refer to this court order 5 to request PLU status with the Jail to meet the deadline set forth below. 6 V. CONCLUSION 7 After screening the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that the 8 complaint states an excessive force claim against “Deputy Sheriff #2549” but is deficient with 9 respect to stating a claim against Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez. Mr. Weston may file an amended 10 complaint to attempt to correct this deficiency as well as to state whether he is a pretrial detainee 11 or a convicted prisoner. An amended complaint must be filed no later than December 6, 2024. 12 The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, Case 13 No. 24-cv-04213 VKD, and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using 14 the court form complaint, Mr. Weston must answer all the questions on the form in order for the 15 action to proceed. 16 Mr. Weston is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original complaint, 17 the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 18 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, claims not included in an amended complaint are no 19 longer claims and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See 20 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 21 If Mr. Weston fails to file an amended complaint in time, or if the amended complaint fails 22 to cure all defects described above, the Court may issue an order reassigning the case to a district 23 judge with a recommendation that any deficient claims be dismissed. 24 Mr. Weston’s motion for a court order regarding full law library access is denied. Dkt. No. 25 11. 26 The Clerk of the Court shall include two copies of the Court’s form complaint with a copy 27 of this order to Mr. Weston. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: November 8, 2024 3 Virginia K. DeMarchi 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28