Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03267/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03267-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GALE JOSEPH YOUNG, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-03267-KAW (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Plaintiff Gale Joseph Young, a state prisoner incarcerated at the San Francisco County Jail, 

has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation of his 

constitutional rights by the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and San Francisco Sheriff’s 

Deputies Garay #2101, Honda #1855, Soville #1997, Fields #1300, Frietzche #1943, H. Wong 

#1959 and A. Wong #1830. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United 

States Magistrate Judge over this action. Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”), which is granted in a separate order. The Court now addresses the claims 

asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Standard of Review 

 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. 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. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se

Case 4:15-cv-03267-KAW Document 6 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

pleadings must be liberally construed. 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. West v. 

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

 Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the 

plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the 

deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. Caifornia Dep’t of Corrections & 

Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 

1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives 

another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does an affirmative act, 

participates in another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to 

do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. 

Under no circumstances is there respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Lemire, 756 

F.3d at 1074. Or, in layman's terms, under no circumstances is there liability under section 1983 

solely because one is responsible for the actions or omissions of another. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 

680-81 (9th Cir. 1984). A supervisor may be liable under § 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal 

involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the 

supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 

1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011)). It is 

insufficient for a plaintiff only to allege that supervisors knew about the constitutional violation 

and that they generally created policies and procedures that led to the violation, without alleging 

“a specific policy” or “a specific event” instigated by them that led to the constitutional violations. 

Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012). 

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, on July 26, 2014, while he was in custody in the San 

Case 4:15-cv-03267-KAW Document 6 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

Francisco County Jail, the named Sheriff’s deputies beat him to the point that he had kidney 

swelling, facial swelling, blinding in his left eye and severe pain that has yet to fade. These 

injuries were so severe that he was taken to the San Francisco General Hospital for treatment. He 

also alleges that “San Francisco Sheriff intentionally put me with inmates that were prone to attack 

me.”

Liberally construed, the allegations that Plaintiff was beaten state an Eighth Amendment 

claim for excessive force against the named deputies. However, the allegation that the Sheriff put 

Plaintiff with inmates that were prone to attack him does not state a cognizable claim because he 

does not allege the individuals who put him with the inmates and the allegations are insufficient to 

show that the Sheriff is liable in his supervisory capacity. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to 

correct this deficiency, if he truthfully can do so. 

CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows: 

 1. The claim that the Sheriff placed Plaintiff with inmates who were prone to attack him is 

DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards set forth above. The amended 

complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this Order is filed and must 

include the caption and civil case number used in this Order and the words AMENDED 

COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original 

complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original 

complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the specified time period will result in this claim 

being dismissed with prejudice. 

 2. The cognizable excessive force claim will be served after Plaintiff files and the Court 

reviews his amended complaint. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within twentyeight days, the excessive force claim will then be served on Defendants. 

 3. 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,” and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so 

Case 4:15-cv-03267-KAW Document 6 Filed 09/01/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 

Northern District of California 

may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 1, 2015 

______________________________________ 

KANDIS A. WESTMORE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-03267-KAW Document 6 Filed 09/01/15 Page 4 of 4