McDaniel v. Sacramento Police Dept. et al

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/15/2014 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended complaint. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONNIE MCDANIEL,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0043 LKK AC PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEP’T, ET AL.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action without counsel and has requested leave to proceed in

18

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court pursuant

19

to Local Rule 302(a).

20
21
22

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the

23

action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

24

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 1915(e)(2).

26

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

27

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

28

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
1

1

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

2

490 U.S. at 327.

3

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

4

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

5

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

6

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt

7

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under

8

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital

9

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light

10

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v.

11

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

12

Plaintiff brings suit against the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, the Sacramento Police

13

Department, and an individual named Brian Baldwin for wrongful arrest and police brutality.

14

Plaintiff provides no specifics of the arrest in his single-sentence complaint other than to say he

15

was personally injured and lost housing. Attached to plaintiff’s complaint, though, are a number

16

of exhibits, including an arrest report revealing that plaintiff was arrested on October 20, 2013 in

17

Sacramento for assault with a deadly weapon after he struck another individual twice with an 8-

18

iron golf club; plaintiff claimed he acted in self-defense. ECF No. 1 at 3, 7. At the time of his

19

arrest, one of the arresting deputies, Deputy M. Heller, directed plaintiff to lie down on the floor.

20

Id. at 9-10. Deputy Heller then struck plaintiff with a baton in his left bicep area after noticing

21

that plaintiff’s forearm and face muscles were tense and after plaintiff allegedly said, “Well, I

22

guess we are going to fight.” Id. at 9-10. Plaintiff counters that the use of force was unnecessary

23

because he was in the process of complying with the order to get on the ground and because the

24

only comment that he made to Deputy Heller was that he was disabled. Id. at 16-17. After the

25

arrest, plaintiff filed a Citizen Complaint with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

26

asserting police brutality, which he claims resulted in a mild stroke. Id.

27
28

Review of the plaintiff’s complaint and attached exhibits convinces the court that the
complaint must be dismissed albeit with leave to amend. This is because, first, although plaintiff
2

1

names Brian Baldwin as a defendant, there are no charging allegations as to this individual and

2

none of the exhibits refer to him. Moreover, as to the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department and the

3

Sacramento Police Department, local governments are generally not liable for the constitutional

4

torts of their employees under a respondeat superior theory. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436

5

U.S. 658, 691 (1978). To establish liability of either of these two defendants (“municipal

6

liability,” or “Monell liability”), a plaintiff must show that “the action that is alleged to be

7

unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision

8

officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.” Id. at 690.

9

Plaintiff has the burden of proving each element of Monell liability at trial and can

10

generally establish a municipal policy in three ways: First, he can identify an explicit policy

11

promulgated by a municipality that employees followed and that led to the deprivation of an

12

individual’s constitutional rights. Monell, 436 U.S. at 690. Second, he can show that even

13

though no explicit policy can be identified, a permanent, widespread, and settled custom existed

14

that employees followed and that led to the deprivation of constitutional rights. Thompson v.

15

City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1444 (9th Cir. 1989); Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918

16

(9th Cir. 1996) (“Liability for improper custom may not be predicated on isolated or sporadic

17

incidents; it must be founded upon practices of sufficient duration, frequency and consistency that

18

the conduct has become a traditional method of carrying out policy.”). Third, he can show that

19

the constitutional deprivation occurred pursuant to a directive by a decisionmaker with final

20

authority to make binding policy. See, e.g., Davis v. City of Ellensburg, 869 F.2d 1230, 1235

21

(9th Cir. 1989). Because plaintiff has not made any allegations establishing Monell liability as

22

described, his claims against the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department and the Sacramento Police

23

Department must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

24

As noted, plaintiff will be granted leave to amend. If plaintiff chooses to amend the

25

complaint, plaintiff must set forth the jurisdictional grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

26

depends. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Further, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conduct complained

27

of has resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227

28

(9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is
3

1

involved. There can be no liability under § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link between a

2

defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (9176); May v.

3

Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.

4

1978). Plaintiff is also directed to be mindful of establishing Monell liability should he decide to

5

continue with his claims against the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department and the Sacramento Police

6

Department.

7

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

8

make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

9

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a

10

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

11

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no

12

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

13

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

14

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted;

16

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and

17

3 Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

18

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the

19

Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case

20

and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the

21

amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result

22

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

23

DATED: April 15, 2014

24
25
26
27
28
4