Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06191/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06191-0/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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Grant191dwlta.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE GRANT III,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

SERGEANT MAHARAJ, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-6191 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

 

Plaintiff, an inmate in county jail, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a

separate written order. The Court reviews Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915A and will order the complaint dismissed with leave to amend.

DISCUSSION

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

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

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

Case 5:07-cv-06191-JF Document 5 Filed 05/08/08 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Grant191dwlta.wpd 2

liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988). 

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

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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Sergeant Maharaj, of the Milpitas Police

Department, came to his house in Hayward accompanied by unidentified officers from the

Alameda County Sheriff’s Department and the Hayward Police Department. After

learning from Plaintiff’s wife that Plaintiff was out riding his motorcycle, Maharaj

dispatched this fact to other police officers. Plaintiff alleges that unidentified police

officers then, without warning, struck Plaintiff’s motorcycle from behind causing Plaintiff

numerous injuries. 

An allegation of the use of excessive force by a law enforcement officer in

effectuating an arrest states a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Graham v.

Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394-95 (1989). However, to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff

must set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s conduct that proximately

caused a violation of his rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Here, the only named defendants are Maharaj, the Milpitas and Hawyard Police

Departments, and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department. Plaintiff does not name as

Defendants any of the officers who struck him with their car. With respect to Maharaj,

the allegations indicate that he was at Plaintiff’s house radioing the other officers, and not

in the car that allegedly struck Plaintiff’s motorcycle. There is no allegation or indication

that Maharaj ordered the other officers to strike Plaintiff’s motorcycle, knew that they

would strike him, or otherwise proximately caused them to strike him. Naming the police

and sheriff’s departments does not suffice to plead a § 1983 claim, however, because

there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and plaintiff has not alleged that the

use of force was pursuant to a policy or practice. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs.,

Case 5:07-cv-06191-JF Document 5 Filed 05/08/08 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Grant191dwlta.wpd 3

436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978) (rejecting concept of respondeat superior liability in § 1983

context, and requiring a policy or practice to establish liability of municipal entity). 

Plaintiff will be given leave to amend the complaint to name the responsible individual

employees as Defendants and to set forth specific facts as to each of the individual

Defendant’s conduct that violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

CONCLUSION

1. The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend within thirty days

from the date this order is filed to cure the deficiencies described above. The amended

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (07-6191 JF

(PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an

amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, Plaintiff must include in

his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the Defendants

he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff

may not incorporate material from the prior complaints, such as exhibits or supporting

documentation of his prison administrative appeal, by reference. Failure to file an

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this

action. 

 2 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 must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely

fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

5/2/08

Case 5:07-cv-06191-JF Document 5 Filed 05/08/08 Page 3 of 3