Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00979/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00979-0/pdf.json

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENNY C. JOHNSTON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COOLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00979-MJS

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZALBE 

CLAIM

(ECF NO. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Benny C. Johnston, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 23, 2014. 

(ECF No. 1.) He has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) His 

complaint is now before the Court for screening.

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 

Case 1:14-cv-00979-MJS Document 6 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 8
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

raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or 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). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion 

thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

The Complaint identifies the following individuals and entities as Defendants: (1) 

Officer Cooley, Bakersfield Police Department; (2) Officer Haskins, Bakersfield Police 

Department; (3) Kern County Police Department; (4) Kern County; (5) Bakersfield Police 

Department; (6) City of Bakersfield; (7) Officer John Doe, Badge Number 1005; (8) 

Officer John Doe, Badge Number 1044; (9) Officer John Doe, Badge Number 1252; (10) 

K-9 Unit; (11) all officers on site of the arrest; and (12) one hundred unspecified John 

Does.

Plaintiff alleges the following:

Plaintiff was in an attic when officers demanded that he come down. Plaintiff 

complied and was unarmed. Plaintiff was then “viciously and brutally beaten” by officers 

and a K-9 unit. Plaintiff was taken from the scene in an ambulance because of his 

injuries; the damage caused by the K-9 unit required two reconstructive surgeries. 

Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants violated his First, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights. (Compl. at 3.) The Court will address Plaintiff’s claims below.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Section 1983

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” 

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for 

Case 1:14-cv-00979-MJS Document 6 Filed 07/29/14 Page 2 of 8
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

3

vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 

(1989).

To state a claim under Section 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda 

Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations 

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 

1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is 

plausible on its face.’” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility 

that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as 

true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949-50.

B. Section 1983 Linkage Requirement

Under § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th 

Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a 

plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting 

this plausibility standard. Id.

The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by the 

plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). 

Government officials may not be held liable for the actions of their subordinates under a 

theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948. Since a government official 

Case 1:14-cv-00979-MJS Document 6 Filed 07/29/14 Page 3 of 8
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

4

cannot be held liable under a theory of vicarious liability in § 1983 actions, Plaintiff must 

plead sufficient facts showing that the official has violated the Constitution through his 

own individual actions. Id. at 1948. In other words, to state a claim for relief under § 

1983, Plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission 

that demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff's federal rights.

The Complaint does not explain how any of the individual Defendants participated 

in, or otherwise might be responsible for, the alleged excessive force. Plaintiff generally 

states that he was subjected to excessive force and the Defendants are responsible, but 

does not set forth specific facts as to conduct by any individual Defendant that 

proximately caused a violation of his rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 

1988). The mere fact that a defendant may have supervised the individuals responsible 

for a violation is not enough. The Defendants may only be held liable in a supervisory 

capacity if they “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and 

failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

Plaintiff has failed to link any of the Defendants to the alleged violation of his 

rights. The Court will provide an opportunity to amend. To state a cognizable claim, 

Plaintiff must demonstrate that each Defendant personally took some action that violated 

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff may not refer to the Defendants generally as a 

group. If Plaintiff cannot identify the Defendants by name, he must number the Doe 

Defendants in the complaint, e.g., “John Doe 1,” “John Doe 2,” or “Officer John Doe, 

Badge Number 1044” and allege specific acts attributed to each of the Doe Defendants, 

e.g., “John Doe 1 did X” and “John Doe 2 and John Doe Badge Number 1044 did Y,” so 

that each numbered John Doe refers to a different specific person and their role in the 

alleged violations is clear.

C. Municipal Liability

The Complaint appears to name the Kern County Police Department, Kern 

County, the Bakersfield Police Department, and the City of Bakersfield as Defendants. A 

local government unit may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees under a 

Case 1:14-cv-00979-MJS Document 6 Filed 07/29/14 Page 4 of 8
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

5

respondeat superior theory of liability. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 

U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2003); Gibson v. County of Washoe, 

290 F.3d 1175, 1185 (9th Cir. 2002). Rather, a local government unit may only be held 

liable if it inflicts the injury complained of. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694; Gibson, 290 F.3d at 

1185.

Generally, a claim against a local government unit for municipal or county liability 

requires an allegation that “a deliberate policy, custom, or practice . . . was the ‘moving 

force’ behind the constitutional violation . . . suffered.” Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 

477 F.3d 652, 667 (9th Cir. 2007); City of Canton, Ohio, v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 

(1989). Alternatively, and more difficult to prove, municipal liability may be imposed 

where the local government unit’s omission led to the constitutional violation by its 

employee. Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1186. Under this route to municipal liability, the “plaintiff 

must show that the municipality’s deliberate indifference led to its omission and that the 

omission caused the employee to commit the constitutional violation.” Id. Deliberate 

indifference requires a showing “that the municipality was on actual or constructive 

notice that its omissions would likely result in a constitutional violation.” Id.

The Complaint does not allege facts reflecting that a deliberate policy, custom, or 

practice was responsible for the excessive force or that the local government units 

named as Defendants were somehow deliberately indifferent. Accordingly, Plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim. The Court will grant leave to amend. To state a claim against a 

government entity, Plaintiff must allege truthful facts consistent with the above legal 

standard.

////

////

////

////

Case 1:14-cv-00979-MJS Document 6 Filed 07/29/14 Page 5 of 8
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

6

D. Excessive Force

A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during the course of 

an arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment1and an objective reasonableness

standard. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989); Davis v. City of Las Vegas, 478 

F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2007). Under this standard, “‘[t]he force which [i]s applied 

must be balanced against the need for that force: it is the need for force which is at the 

heart of the Graham factors.’” Liston v. County of Riverside, 120 F.3d 965, 976 (9th Cir. 

1997) (quoting Alexander v. City and County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1367 (9th 

Cir. 1994). The Graham factors are a non-exhaustive list of considerations used to 

measure the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation: “[1] the severity 

of the crime at issue, [2] whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of 

the officers or others, and [3] whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to 

evade arrest by flight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396.

The right to make an arrest or investigatory stop carries with it the right to use 

some degree of physical coercion or threat. Id. However, the force applied must be 

necessary to be reasonable. Where police have control over a suspect, the use of 

further force to bring the suspect under control may be unreasonable. See LaLonde v. 

County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 961 (9th Cir. 2000) (use of force upon a person after 

surrender constitutes excessive force).

Plaintiff alleges he exited an attic as commanded and was unarmed when he was 

attacked by law enforcement. The Complaint does not offer any further details except 

that a K-9 was used and Plaintiff suffered severe injuries. An arrest report attached to 

the Complaint is difficult to read but indicates that Plaintiff had led police on a high speed 

chase in a stolen vehicle and then barricaded himself inside an attic after hitting a 

 

1

Plaintiff alleges excessive force during arrest in violation of his First, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights. As an arrestee Plaintiff’s right to be free from excessive force is protected by the 

Fourth Amendment alone.

Case 1:14-cv-00979-MJS Document 6 Filed 07/29/14 Page 6 of 8
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

7

parked car. Plaintiff allegedly tried to set fires in the attic before fighting a K-9 unit and 

kicking an officer. Plaintiff also threatened to kill responding officers. (Compl. at 7.)

The Complaint does not provide factual detail that might state a cognizable claim

especially given the attachment which reflects justification for the actions taken against 

Plaintiff. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend. To state a claim Plaintiff must 

fully describe the circumstances surrounding his arrest and demonstrate that the 

Defendants’ use of force was unreasonable. Any amended complaint must reconcile 

Plaintiff’s description of events with the police report. Plaintiff must also include facts 

linking each Defendant with the violation of his rights.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state a claim for relief. The Court will grant Plaintiff 

an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 

(9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff opts to amend, he must demonstrate that the alleged acts 

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Plaintiff 

must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” 

Id. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must also demonstrate 

that each named Defendant personally participated in a deprivation of his rights. Jones 

v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it 

is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 

Cir. 2007). Plaintiff should carefully read this Screening Order and focus his efforts on 

curing the deficiencies set forth above.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general 

rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint 

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 

Case 1:14-cv-00979-MJS Document 6 Filed 07/29/14 Page 7 of 8
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

8

sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First

Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 

under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 

omitted).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted;

3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, 

this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and failure to 

comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00979-MJS Document 6 Filed 07/29/14 Page 8 of 8