Williams v. Deputy Brannon & Deputy Franco
Filing
4
ORDER OF SERVICE re 1 Complaint filed by Michael Anthony Williams. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 11/14/13. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
MICHAEL ANTHONY WILLIAMS
Plaintiff,
7
v.
8
9
ORDER OF SERVICE
ALAMEDA SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
10
/
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
No. C 13-4638 EDL (PR)
12
Plaintiff, who appears to be a pretrial detainee at Santa Rita Jail, has filed a pro se
13
civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in
14
forma pauperis.
15
16
17
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
18
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
19
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
20
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
21
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
22
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
23
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
24
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
25
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;
26
the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
27
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations
28
omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual
1
allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'
2
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
3
cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
4
above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
5
(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
6
plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained
7
the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the
8
framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are
9
well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
679 (2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
12
13
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
14
violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the
15
color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
16
B.
17
18
19
Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that two deputies of the Alameda County Sheriffs Department used
excessive force against him.
The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is
20
confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. McKinney, 509
21
U.S. 25, 31 (1993). "After incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain
22
. . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment."
23
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (ellipsis in original) (internal quotation and
24
citation omitted). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements
25
are met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious, Farmer v.
26
Brennan, 511 U.S. 824, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and
27
(2) the prison official possesses a sufficiently culpable state of mind, i.e., the offending
28
2
1
conduct was wanton, id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297). Whenever prison officials stand
2
accused of using excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the core judicial
3
inquiry is whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline,
4
or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-21
5
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a post-arraignment
6
pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment. Graham v.
7
Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-39
8
(1979)). Resolving such a substantive due process claim requires courts to balance
9
several factors focusing on the reasonableness of the officers' actions given the
circumstances. White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501, 1507 (9th Cir. 1990). These factors
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
include (1) the need for the application of force, (2) the relationship between the need and
12
the amount of force that was used, (3) the extent of the injury inflicted, and (4) whether
13
force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline. Id. In order to
14
prevail on an excessive force claim, a pretrial detainee must show the use of force was
15
excessive because it was not reasonably necessary to maintain or restore order and/or
16
discipline. See Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2007) (excessive force
17
claim brought by civilly confined plaintiff), rev'd on other grounds, 129 S. Ct. 2431 (2009).
18
Plaintiff alleges that Deputies Brannon and Franko stomped on the back of his head
19
and neck and kicked him in the rib cage. He states he suffered broken ribs and is
20
experiencing nerve damage. While Plaintiff has not provided additional details surrounding
21
this incident, the claim is sufficient to proceed whether Plaintiff is a prisoner or pretrial
22
detainee.
23
24
CONCLUSION
1. The clerk shall issue a summons and Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form
25
and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, the summons,
26
Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, copies of the complaint with attachments and
27
copies of this order on Deputy Brannon and Deputy Franko at Santa Rita Jail.
28
3
1
2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:
a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, Defendant shall file a
2
3
motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported
4
by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of
5
Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming
6
from the events at issue. If Defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by
7
summary judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior to the date his summary judgment
8
motion is due. All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on Plaintiff.
a separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d
11
For the Northern District of California
b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, Defendant shall also serve, on
10
United States District Court
9
952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4
12
(9th Cir. 2003). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand and
13
Wyatt notices must be given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss
14
for nonexhaustion is filed, not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement).
15
c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the
16
Court and served upon Defendant no later than thirty days from the date the motion was
17
served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,”
18
which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir.
19
1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).
20
If Defendant files an unenumerated motion to dismiss claiming that Plaintiff failed to
21
exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), Plaintiff
22
should take note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),”
23
which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th
24
Cir. 2003).
25
26
27
d. If Defendant wishes to file a reply brief, he shall do so no later than fifteen
days after the opposition is served upon him.
e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is
28
4
1
2
due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date.
3. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendant, or
3
Defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the
4
document to Defendant or Defendant’s counsel.
5
4. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
6
No further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the
7
parties may conduct discovery.
8
9
5. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice
of Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to
12
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated: November 14, 2013.
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Chief Magistrate Judge
15
16
G:\PRO-SE\EDL\CR.13\Williams4638.serve.wpd
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
1
NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)
2
If Defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case
3
dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
4
Procedure will, if granted, end your case.
judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue
7
of material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result
8
of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter
9
of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary
10
judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot
11
For the Northern District of California
Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary
6
United States District Court
5
simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in
12
declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as
13
provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in Defendant's declarations and
14
documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not
15
submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered
16
against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be
17
no trial.
NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)
18
19
20
21
If Defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, they are
seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.
You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that
22
you did exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of
23
declarations (statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that
24
is, documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they
25
are authentic, or other sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions.
26
27
If Defendant files a motion to dismiss and it is granted, your case will be dismissed
and there will be no trial.
28
6
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
MICHAEL ANTHONY WILLIAMS,
Case Number: CV13-04638 EDL
7
Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
8
9
ALAMEDA COUNTY et al,
Defendant.
/
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
v.
12
13
14
15
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on November 15, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.
16
17
18
19
20
Michael Anthony Williams AIQ563
5325 Broder Blvd.
Dublin, CA 94568
Dated: November 15, 2013
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Lisa R Clark, Deputy Clerk
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?