Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02420/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02420-15/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

Plaintiff proceeds pro se with claims related to his arrest on November 21, 2017, by the 

Sacramento Sheriff’s Department. (See ECF No. 1, Complaint.) By order dated April 14, 2023, 

this court ordered defendant Riviera to file an answer to plaintiff’s complaint within 30 days. 

(ECF No. 91.) In that order, the court noted the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum opinion dated 

March 7, 2023 had reversed the dismissal of plaintiff’s excessive force, Bane Act, battery, and 

negligence claims against defendant Riviera and remanded those claims for further proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit’s memorandum opinion dated March 7, 2023 also reversed the 

dismissal of plaintiff’s negligence claims against defendants Ball, Madriago, and the County of 

Sacramento. The Ninth Circuit reasoned as follows:

Having arrested Alston while he was “dependent, subject to the[ir] 

control[,] . . . and unable to attend to his . . . own medical needs,”

Ball and Madriago were in a special relationship with Alston and 

“owe[d] [him] a duty of reasonable care[.]” Alston plausibly alleged 

Case 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD Document 92 Filed 04/24/23 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

that by failing to fasten his seatbelt in the patrol car, Ball and 

Madriago breached their duty of care, and that this breach “was a 

substantial factor in bringing about the harm” that resulted when Ball

repeatedly braked hard en route to the hospital. Because “[p]ublic 

entities are correspondingly liable for the negligent acts or omissions 

of their employees acting within the scope of their employment[,]”

and neither Ball nor Madriago are statutorily immunized for the 

alleged conduct, Alston also stated a claim for negligence against the 

County. Therefore, the district court’s decision on Alston’s 

negligence claim against Ball, Madriago, and the County is reversed 

and remanded for further proceedings.

(ECF No. 88 at 6-7 (citations omitted).)

As such, defendants Ball, Madriago, and the County of Sacramento are also required to 

file an answer to plaintiff’s complaint.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendants Ball, Madriago, and the County of Sacramento shall file an answer to 

plaintiff’s complaint on or before May 19, 2023.

2. Sua sponte, the court grants defendant Riviera up to and including the same date of 

May 19, 2023, to answer plaintiff’s complaint.

Dated: April 24, 2023

8

Alston18cv2420.answ2

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD Document 92 Filed 04/24/23 Page 2 of 2