Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01115/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01115-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDERSON PURNELL THURSTON, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

SANTA ROSE POLICE DEP'T, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-1115 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Pleasant Valley State Prison, has filed a pro se

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages for the allegedly unlawful killing

of his son by four unidentified City of Santa Rosa police officers. Plaintiff also

names the Santa Rosa Police Department and Chief on the ground that they

released false and misleading information about his son after his death in an

effort to cover-up responsibility.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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

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

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

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

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

Case 3:08-cv-01115-CRB Document 5 Filed 07/24/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 1The standard of culpability applicable to substantive due process claims

arising from the unintentional killing of an individual by law enforcement

officers is arbitrary conduct which shocks the conscience. See County of

Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845-47 (1998). 

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Legal Claims

The Fourteenth Amendment protects familial relationships from

unwarranted state interference. See Smith v. City of Fontana, 818 F.2d 1411,

1418 (9th Cir. 1987). Where state action resulting in the unlawful death of a

family member is alleged, surviving family members may bring a claim under §

1983 for violation of their due process rights in the companionship and society of

the decedent. See Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police, 159 F.3d 365, 371 (9th

Cir. 1998) (substantive due process claim may be asserted by both the parents

and children of a person killed by law enforcement officers).1

 But allegations of

any sort of post-death cover up are insufficient to state an additional claim under

§ 1983. See Guyton v. Phillips, 606 F.2d 248, 250-51 (9th Cir. 1979) (claim of

post-death conspiracy to cover up cause of death not cognizable); Cartwright v.

City of Concord, 618 F. Supp. 722, 730 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (alleged inadequacy of

investigation following decedent's suicide not cognizable).

Liberally construed, plaintiff's allegations appear to state a cognizable

claim under § 1983 for violation of his due process right in the companionship

Case 3:08-cv-01115-CRB Document 5 Filed 07/24/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

and society of his son against the four unidentified police officers who killed

plaintiff's son. But in order to proceed against them, plaintiff must identify them

through discovery and amend his complaint to name them and set forth specific

facts as to how each individual police officer violated his rights. See Wakefield

v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Plaintiff may also amend to allege, if possible, that the City of Santa Rosa

Police Department is liable because the individual police officers' conduct

conformed to unlawful official policy, conduct or practice. See Galbraith v.

County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir. 2002). But the department

cannot be held vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees

under the theory of respondeat superior. See Board of County Comm'rs v.

Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend,

as indicated above, within 60 days of this order. The pleading must be simple

and concise and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order

and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to

file a proper amended complaint within the designated time will result in the

dismissal of this action.

Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original

complaint and all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the

amended complaint will not be considered by the court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 21, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.08\Thurston, A1.dwlta.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-01115-CRB Document 5 Filed 07/24/08 Page 3 of 3