Hall v. Hayward Police Department

Filing 7

ORDER OF SERVICE Dispositive Motion due by 10/24/2012.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 7/23/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MARK VINCENT HALL, BBK134,
Plaintiff(s),

10
v.

11
12

HAYWARD POLICE DEP'T, et al.,
Defendant(s).

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 12-2340 CRB (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

14
15

Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at Alameda County's Santa Rita Jail, has filed

16

a pro se complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force

17

during arrest and unlawful arrest and prosecution due to various misconduct.

18

Plaintiff also seeks dismissal of the criminal charges against him.

19
20
21

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

22

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

23

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

24

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

25

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

26

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

27

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however.

28

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

1

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two

2

essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the

3

United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a

4

person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

5

(1988).

6

B.

7

Legal Claims
The use of excessive force in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop

8

of a free citizen may violate the Fourth Amendment. See Graham v. Connor, 490

9

U.S. 386, 394-95 (1989). Here, plaintiff's allegations that Hayward police

10

officers M. Troche, M. Miller, J. Faria and C. Norris used excessive force while

11

arresting him (e.g., slammed him onto ground head first and dragged him through

12

driveway) appear to state a cognizable claim under § 1983, when liberally

13

construed, and will be served on these four defendants. See Rutherford v. City of

14

Berkeley, 780 F.2d 1444, 1447 (9th Cir. 1986) (allegation of use of excessive

15

force by law enforcement officer in effectuating arrest states claim under § 1983),

16

overruled on other grounds by Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).1

17

But plaintiff's allegations of misconduct implicating the unlawfulness of

18

his arrest and prosecution (entering premises without a warrant or probable cause,

19

tampering with evidence, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, etc.) will be

20

stayed until plaintiff's criminal case is ended. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384,

21

393-94(2007). If plaintiff is later convicted, and if the stayed allegations state a

22

claim which would impugn that conviction, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

23
24

1

27

The City of Hayward and the Hayward Police Department are dismissed
in connection with this claim because a city may not be held vicariously liable for
the unconstitutional acts of its employees under the theory of respondeat superior
and plaintiff sets forth no other basis for municipal liability. See Board of Cty.
Comm'rs. of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997).

28

2

25
26

1

(1994), will require dismissal; otherwise, the claim may then proceed. See

2

Wallace, 549 U.S. at 394.2

3

Finally, plaintiff's request for dismissal of the charges against him must be

4

dismissed without prejudice. To whatever extent plaintiff seeks to challenge the

5

legality of his detention, his sole remedy is to file a petition for writ of habeas

6

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after exhausting state judicial remedies. See

7

McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003); Carden v. Montana,

8

626 F.2d 82, 83-84 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1980).

9

In sum, this action will proceed only as to plaintiff's § 1983 claim for

10

damages for use of excessive force during arrest against Hayward police officers

11

M. Troche, M. Miller, J. Faria and C. Norris.
CONCLUSION

12
13

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

14

1.

The clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall

15

serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint in this matter, all

16

attachments thereto, and copies of this order on Hayward police officers M.

17

Troche, M. Miller, J. Faria and C. Norris. The clerk also shall serve a copy of

18

this order on plaintiff.

19

2.

20

follows:

21
22

In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as

a.

No later than 90 days from the date of this order, defendants

shall serve and file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion.

23
2

27

Plaintiff's general allegations of police and municipal negligence may be
dismissed now because it is well established that the Constitution does not
guarantee due care on the part of state officials; liability for negligently inflicted
harm is categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process. See
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 849 (1998); Davidson v. Cannon,
474 U.S. 344, 348 (1986); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986).

28

3

24
25
26

1

A motion for summary judgment must be supported by adequate factual

2

documentation and must conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil

3

Procedure 56, and must include as exhibits all records and incident reports

4

stemming from the events at issue. A motion for summary judgment also must

5

be accompanied by a Rand notice so that plaintiff will have fair, timely and

6

adequate notice of what is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods

7

v. Carey, Nos. 09-15548 & 09-16113, slip op. 7871, 7874 (9th Cir. July 6, 2012)

8

(notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998),

9

must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment). A motion to

10

dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies similarly must be

11

accompanied by a Wyatt notice. Id. (notice requirement set out in Wyatt v.

12

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003), must be served concurrently with motion

13

to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies).

14

If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by

15

summary judgment or other dispositive motion, they shall so inform the court

16

prior to the date their motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be

17

served promptly on plaintiff.

18

b.

Plaintiff must serve and file an opposition or statement of

19

non-opposition to the dispositive motion not more than 28 days after the motion

20

is served and filed.

21

c.

Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary judgment

22

under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your

23

case. Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for

24

summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there

25

is no genuine issue of material fact – that is, if there is no real dispute about any

26

fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary

27
28

4

1

judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case.

2

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is

3

properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply

4

rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

5

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents,

6

as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradicts the facts shown in the defendant's

7

declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material

8

fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary

9

judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is

10

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand v. Rowland,

11

154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A).

12

Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

13

available administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted,

14

end your case, albeit without prejudice. You must "develop a record" and present

15

it in your opposition in order to dispute any "factual record" presented by the

16

defendants in their motion to dismiss. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120

17

n.14 (9th Cir. 2003).

18

(The Rand and Wyatt notices above do not excuse defendants' obligation

19

to serve said notices again concurrently with motions to dismiss for failure to

20

exhaust available administrative remedies and motions for summary judgment.

21

Woods, slip op. at 7874.)

22
23

d.

Defendants must serve and file a reply to an opposition not

more than 14 days after the opposition is served and filed.

24

e.

The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the

25

reply is due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a

26

later date.

27
28

5

1

3.

Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of

2

Civil Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

3

30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

4

4.

All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on

5

defendants, or defendants' counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing

6

a true copy of the document to defendants or defendants' counsel.

7

5.

It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must

8

keep the court and all parties informed of any change of address and must comply

9

with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the

10

dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

11

SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: July 23, 2012
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.12\Hall, M.12-2340.serve.wpd

27
28

6