Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01419/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01419-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

16cv1419 WQH (NLS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLYDE REGINALD ELLIS, an 

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER BRADY; SAN DIEGO 

SHERIFF'S OFFICE, DOES 1-7,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 16cv1419 WQH (NLS)

ORDER REQUIRING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE:

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF 

DEFENDANT DERRICK BRADY 

Plaintiff Clyde Reginald Ellis, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action alleging various claims stemming from an altercation with 

Defendant on June 7, 2015. In his first claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff alleges 

that Defendant used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. ECF No. 1 

¶¶23-35.1

 Plaintiff was in custody at the time of the altercation, so the Fourth 

Amendment would not apply. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989) 

(explaining that the Fourth Amendment applies to claims that excessive force was used in 

the course of an investigatory stop, an arrest, or any other “seizure” of the individual). 

 

1 The remaining four claims that pertain to Defendant Derrick Brady arise under California state law.

Case 3:16-cv-01419-WQH-NLS Document 33 Filed 10/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv1419 WQH (NLS)

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

This alone does not warrant dismissal of the claim, because courts are directed to 

construe pro se pleadings liberally. See Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (quoting Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)) (in the Ninth 

Circuit, it has long been established that “‘where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in 

civil rights cases, [courts should] construe the pleadings liberally and ... afford the 

petitioner the benefit of any doubt’”). However, as the Court explained in its initial 

screening order, it is not clear from Plaintiff’s complaint “whether Plaintiff was a pretrial 

detainee or a convicted prisoner at the time” of the alleged incident. ECF No. 3 at 5-6.

On August 14, 2017, Defendant Brady filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF 

No. 19. In this motion, Defendant never clarifies whether Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee 

or a convicted prisoner. If Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee, his claim would be analyzed 

under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, __ 

U.S. __, 135 S.Ct 2466, 2473 (2015) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 395 n.10) (“the Due 

Process Clause protects a pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to 

punishment”). Post-conviction, his claim would be considered under the Eighth 

Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment standard. See Hudson v. McMill, 503 U.S. 

1, 6-7 (1992). Instead of confirming Plaintiff’s status through discovery and presenting

arguments under the appropriate Constitutional amendment, Defendant sets forth all three 

legal standards and alternatively argues for summary judgment under the Fourth 

Amendment, which does not apply, and the Eighth Amendment, which may or may not 

apply. 

In his recently filed opposition, Plaintiff states that before the incident, “Plaintiff 

was sentenced by the court in his case to serve time in state prison.” ECF No. 32 at 11. 

This suggests that Plaintiff was a convicted prisoner, but there is no other evidence before 

this Court confirming that fact.

It is not this Court’s burden to make Defendant’s argument for him. Defendant’s 

summary judgment motion failed to identify the critical fact of Plaintiff’s detainment 

status. It appears Plaintiff now has provided that fact. However, before the Court can 

Case 3:16-cv-01419-WQH-NLS Document 33 Filed 10/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv1419 WQH (NLS)

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

address whether Defendant Brady is entitled to qualified immunity and whether summary 

judgment is appropriate, Defendant must present argument under the appropriate 

Constitutional Amendment. Defendant, therefore, is ordered to provide supplemental 

briefing on or before November 1, 2017. Plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition by

November 15, 2017 and Defendant’s reply, if any, is due by November 22, 2017. The 

Court then will take the matter under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01419-WQH-NLS Document 33 Filed 10/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3