Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02322/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02322-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 1

 Plaintiff’s pleadings also identify an “aka” of “Charles Williams.” 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MCKINNEY,1

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2322 GEB KJM P

vs.

LOU BLANAS, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 under 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

Case 2:03-cv-02322-GEB -KJM Document 4 Filed 10/03/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Plaintiff alleges that four sheriffs’ deputies used excessive force on him on August

22, 2003. Compl. at 3. There is no information in the complaint about the charges that led to

plaintiff’s incarceration in the county jail or any subsequent criminal proceedings.

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994) the Supreme Court ruled a

§ 1983 action that would necessarily call into question the lawfulness of a plaintiff’s conviction

is not cognizable unless the plaintiff can show his conviction has been reversed. The Ninth

Circuit has recognized, however, that Heck does not bar all excessive force suits even following

Case 2:03-cv-02322-GEB -KJM Document 4 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

a conviction for resisting an officer so long as the alleged force occurred before or after the

arrest. Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 697-98 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, U.S.

 , 125 S. Ct. 2938 (2005); Sanford v. Motts, 258 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2001). From the

brief factual description in the complaint, the court cannot determine whether the action may

proceed without impacting on any underlying criminal conviction.

Moreover, plaintiff has named Sacramento County and its sheriff Lou Blanas as

defendants. In Monell v. New York City Dept. Of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978),

the Supreme Court held a municipality was not liable under the Civil Rights Act simply because

the agency or municipality employed a person who violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

The basis for any such claim must be a showing of a governmental policy or custom that was

“the moving force” behind the constitutional violation. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471

U.S. 808, 820 (1985). The Ninth Circuit has distilled these pleading requirements for a § 1983

action against a municipality: the plaintiff must show he was deprived of a constitutional right,

the municipality has a policy, the policy amounts to deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s

constitutional rights, and the policy is the moving force behind the constitutional violation. 

Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff has pled nothing to connect the

alleged violations with any county policy.

In addition, plaintiff has not shown how defendant Blanas was involved in the

alleged violation of his rights. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“liability

under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant

(citation omitted) . . . [t]here is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983.”); Johnson v.

Duffy, 588 F.3d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978) (discussing “requisite causal connection” in section

1983 cases between named defendant and claimed injury); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,

1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999) ("A plaintiff must allege facts, not

simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of

his civil rights."). 

Case 2:03-cv-02322-GEB -KJM Document 4 Filed 10/03/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to submit an amended complaint. Plaintiff

is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended

complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in

itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 

Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in

the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file

an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for a civil rights

action by a prisoner. 

DATED: September 30, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02322-GEB -KJM Document 4 Filed 10/03/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

2/mcki2322.14

Case 2:03-cv-02322-GEB -KJM Document 4 Filed 10/03/05 Page 5 of 5