Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05434/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05434-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TION ALONZO HILL, SR., 

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY ARNOLD, etc.; et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 09-5434 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF SERVICE 

INTRODUCTION

Tion Alonzo Hill, Sr., an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail # 5, filed this pro se

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that excessive force was used on him at

the jail. The complaint is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A.

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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). The court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which 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

28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1),(2).

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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Case 3:09-cv-05434-TEH Document 5 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is

confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. See Helling v. McKinney,

509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). In its prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment," the Eighth

Amendment places restraints on prison officials, who may not, for example, use excessive

force against prisoners. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). When the inmate

on whom force is used is a pretrial detainee rather than a convict, his claim arises under the

Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment, although the Eighth Amendment

would serve as a benchmark for evaluating the claim. See Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977,

979 (9th Cir. 1996) (8th Amendment guarantees provide minimum standard of care for

pretrial detainees). 

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that, on July 13, 2009, he was “attacked” by deputy

Arnold and other deputies. He further alleges that he was handcuffed too tightly, was forced

into every wall and dragged by his hands while cuffed. He alleges that he was at the time

complying with orders and not resisting. He further alleges that he was taken to the lock-up

part of the jail, where he was attacked by sergeant Sanchez and other deputies who

“proceeded to kick on me and twist my ankle and [force] into the middle of my back.” 

Complaint, p. 3.

Liberally construed, the complaint states a § 1983 claim against defendants deputy

Arnold (star # 1950), and sergeant Sanchez for the use of excessive force on Hill. The

parties may later inform the court of Hill’s status at the time of the incident so that his claim

can be analyzed under the correct constitutional provision; the distinction does not matter

today because the complaint states a claim under either the Eighth or Fourteenth

Amendment. The complaint does not state a claim for relief against the facility captain or

the Sheriff or the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, all of whom were apparently listed as

defendants because they were the employers of the alleged wrongdoers and none of whom

were alleged to have played any role in the alleged constitutional violation. See Monell v.

Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (local governments cannot be liable under §

1983 under respondeat superior theory). 

Case 3:09-cv-05434-TEH Document 5 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable § 1983 claim against San Francisco Sheriff’s

deputy Arnold (star # 1950) and San Francisco Sheriff’s sergeant Sanchez for the use of

excessive force against him. All other defendants and claims are dismissed.

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve,

without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint and this order upon San Francisco

Sheriff’s deputy Arnold (star # 1950) and San Francisco Sheriff’s sergeant Sanchez, both of

whom apparently work at the San Francisco County Jail # 5 in San Bruno, California. 

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule

for dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than July 2, 2010, defendants must file and serve a motion for

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this

case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they must so inform the court prior to the

date the motion is due.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive

motion must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than August 6,

2010. Plaintiff must bear in mind the following notice and warning regarding summary

judgment as he prepares his opposition to any summary judgment motion:

The defendants may make 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.

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. 

Case 3:09-cv-05434-TEH Document 5 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be

no trial. (See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they must file and serve the reply

brief no later than August 20, 2010.

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. The court may

disregard any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until

a defendant's counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document

directly to defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be

mailed to counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

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

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

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

6. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep

the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a

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

prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

must include the case name and case number for this case on any document he submits to this

court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2010 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05434-TEH Document 5 Filed 04/02/10 Page 4 of 4