Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01720/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01720-0/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR RAY SEYMORE, 

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CITY OF UNION CITY, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

ARTHUR RAY SEYMORE,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CITY OF HAYWARD, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-1720 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc # 2)

No. C 06-1721 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Doc # 2)

Plaintiff, while incarcerated at Avenal State Prison, filed two pro se civil

rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he was "severely beaten"

by several police officers upon being apprehended on April 8, 2005. Plaintiff

also alleges that he believes the officers' actions violated his constitutional rights,

but gives no further details. 

The two complaints are identical except that the first, filed as civil case

number C 06-1720 CRB (PR), is against the City of Union City and various

Union City police officers, and the second, filed as civil case number C 06-1721

CRB (PR), is against the City of Hayward and various Hayward police officers.

Case 3:06-cv-01720-CRB Document 4 Filed 07/25/06 Page 1 of 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 2

Plaintiff seeks damages and leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28

U.S.C. §1915, which, good cause appearing, is GRANTED in both cases (doc # 2

in 06-1720 and doc # 2 in 06-1721).

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 

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).

B. Legal Claims

Excessive force claims which arise in the context of an arrest or

investigatory stop of a free citizen are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment

reasonableness standard. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394-95 (1989);

Forrester v. City of San Diego, 25 F.3d 804, 806 (9th Cir. 1994). This analysis

applies to any arrest situation where force is used, whether it involves physical

restraint, use of a baton, use of a gun, or use of a dog. See, e.g., Mendoza v.

Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362-63 (9th Cir. 1994) (deputies' use of police dog to find

suspect and secure him until handcuffed analyzed under reasonableness

Case 3:06-cv-01720-CRB Document 4 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 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 3

standard). Plaintiff's conclusory allegations of use of excessive force will not do,

however. 

In order to proceed with a claim for damages for use of excessive force

during arrest, plaintiff must specifically allege how each named defendant

actually and proximately caused the deprivation of his Fourth Amendment rights. 

See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff must "set forth

specific facts as to each individual defendant's" deprivation of plaintiff's federally

protected rights. Id. 

Plaintiff is advised that the cities of Union City and Hayward may not be

held vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under the

theory of respondeat superior. See Board of County Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S.

397, 403 (1997). To impose municipal liability under § 1983 for a violation of

constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a

constitutional right of which he or she was deprived; (2) that the municipality had

a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's

constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the

constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill,

130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaints in both civil cases C 06-1720

CRB (PR) and C 06-1721 CRB (PR) are DISMISSED under the authority of 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Plaintiff may file an amended complaint against all

defendants (both Union City and Hayward defendants), as indicated above,

within 30 days of this order. The pleading must be simple and concise and must

include civil case number C 06-1720 CRB (PR) and the words FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Civil case number C 06-1721 CRB

Case 3:06-cv-01720-CRB Document 4 Filed 07/25/06 Page 3 of 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 4

(PR) is dismissed without leave to amend; all future proceedings must be under

civil case number C 06-1720 CRB (PR) only. 

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file a proper amended complaint in civil

case C 06-1720 CRB (PR) within the designated time will result in the dismissal

of his action. He is further advised that the amended complaint will supersede

the original complaint and all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not

included in the amended complaint will not be considered by the court. See King

v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

The clerk is instructed to terminate civil case number C 06-1721 CRB

(PR) as duplicative and to close the file. All further proceedings shall be under

civil case number C 06-1720 CRB (PR) only.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 25, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01720-CRB Document 4 Filed 07/25/06 Page 4 of 4