Hogg v. Sanchez et al

Filing 8

ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 7/8/2024. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 03/27/2024. (jmd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2024) Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROOSEVELT HOGG,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER DIRECTING
DEFENDANTS TO FILE A
DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR
NOTICE REGARDING SUCH
MOTION;

YESENIA L. SANCHEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER OF SERVICE;

v.

9
10

Case No. 23-cv-06021-WHO (PR)

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

12
13
14

INTRODUCTION

15

Plaintiff Roosevelt Hogg alleges that sheriff’s deputies used excessive force on him

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint containing these
allegations is now before me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Hogg has stated cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against
Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Deputies R. Nixon and R. Quinteros. All other
defendants and claims are DISMISSED. The Court directs defendants Nixon and
Quinteros to file in response to the complaint a dispositive motion, or a notice regarding
such motion, on or before July 8, 2024.
DISCUSSION

24
25
26
27
28

A.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any

1

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim

2

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

3

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.

4

See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5
6

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

7

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

8

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

9

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

10

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal

11

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably

12

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55

13

(9th Cir. 1994).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

14
15

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

16

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

17

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

18

B.

19

Legal Claims
Hogg alleges that on September 10, 2023 Alameda County Sheriff’s Deputies R.

20

Nixon and R. Quinteros attacked him and used excessive force in violation of the Eighth

21

Amendment. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3.) When liberally construed, Hogg has stated

22

Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Nixon and Quinteros.

23

Hogg names Sheriff Yesenia L. Sanchez as a defendant, presumably because she is

24

a supervisor, but does not allege any specific claim against her. Defendants cannot be held

25

liable for a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “unless they were integral

26

participants in the unlawful conduct.” Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1241 (9th Cir.

27

2018). Furthermore, there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Taylor v. List,

28

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). It is not enough that the supervisor merely has a
2

1

supervisory relationship over the defendants; the plaintiff must show that the supervisor

2

“participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to

3

prevent them.” Id. Nothing in Hogg’s allegations show knowledge of or participation in

4

the assault. All claims against Sanchez will be dismissed, and she will be terminated as a

5

defendant in this action.
CONCLUSION

6
7

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

8

1.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

The Court orders service of the complaint (Dkt. No. 1), and all attachments

thereto, on defendants R. Nixon and R. Quinteros, both employed as deputies at the

10

Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, and orders these defendants to respond to the cognizable

11

claims raised in the complaint.

12

2.

On or before July 8, 2024, defendants shall file a motion for summary

13

judgment or other dispositive motion or responsive pleading with respect to the claim(s) in

14

the complaint found to be cognizable above.
a.

15

If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff

16

failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.

17

§ 1997e(a), defendants shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by

18

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014).
b.

19

Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate

20

factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of

21

Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor

22

qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the

23

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the

24

Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.

25

3.

Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court

26

and served on defendants no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendants’

27

motion is filed.

28

4.

Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after
3

1
2
3
4

5.

The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due.

No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date.
6.

All communications by the plaintiff with the Court must be served on

5

defendants, or on defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true

6

copy of the document to defendants or defendants’ counsel.

7

7.

Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

8

Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local

9

Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

plaintiff’s opposition is filed.

Plaintiff may use any applicable jail procedures to request copies of (or the

11

opportunity to review) any reports, medical records, or other records maintained by jail

12

officials that are relevant to the claims found cognizable in this Order. Such requests must

13

be made directly to jail officials, not to the Court.

14

8.

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

15

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a

16

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to

17

prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

18
19
20

9.

Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be

extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.
10.

A decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs be

21

given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions

22

at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or

23

otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir.

24

2012). Defendant shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when he files and serves

25

any motion for summary judgment:

26
27
28

The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they
seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your
case.
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary
judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no
genuine issue of material fact — that is, if there is no real dispute about any
fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for
summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end
your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary
judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn
testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead,
you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that
contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and documents and
show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not
submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate,
may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will
be dismissed and there will be no trial.
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-963 (9th Cir. 1998).
11.

The Clerk shall terminate Yesenia L. Sanchez as a defendant in this action.

13

All claims against her are DISMISSED.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: March 27, 2024
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5