Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02420/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02420-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC ANTHONY ALSTON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD (PS)

ORDER

Proceeding pro se, plaintiff commenced this civil rights action on September 4, 2018 

against the County of Sacramento and various individual defendants. (ECF No. 1.) On May 31, 

2019, the court dismissed all but three causes of action, and all but one defendant, for failure to

state a claim. (ECF No. 23.) On December 15, 2020, the court granted defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment as to plaintiff’s remaining claims. (ECF No. 78.) Plaintiff appealed the 

judgment.

On March 7, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the 

judgment, in part, and remanding this case for further proceedings. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit 

held as follows:

The district court erred in dismissing Alston’s Fourth Amendment 

excessive force, Bane Act, and state law battery and negligence 

claims against Defendant Riviera because Alston plausibly alleged a 

sufficiently severe Fourth Amendment intrusion when the complaint 

Case 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD Document 91 Filed 04/14/23 Page 1 of 2
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

stated that Riviera ordered two officers to forcibly throw Alston from 

his wheelchair. Alston also plausibly alleged the “specific intent” 

element of a Bane Act claim and the “injury” elements of battery and 

negligence claims. Therefore, the district court’s decisions on 

Alston’s excessive force, Bane Act, battery, and negligence claims 

against Riviera are reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 

(ECF No. 88 at 3-4 (citations omitted).)1 As such, defendant Riviera is required to file an answer 

to plaintiff’s complaint.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendant Riviera shall file an answer to plaintiff’s complaint within 30 days of this 

order.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Ken Lloyd as a defendant in this action.

Dated: April 14, 2023

8

Alston18cv2420.answ

1 The Ninth Circuit’s mandate issued on March 30, 2023.

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD Document 91 Filed 04/14/23 Page 2 of 2