Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-08204/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-08204-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL L LUCKERT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

O. SMITH, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-08204-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, a former detainee, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

DISCUSSION 

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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 

dismiss any claims which 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. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 

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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim 

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) 

(citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed 

Case 4:19-cv-08204-PJH Document 10 Filed 03/02/20 Page 1 of 5
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 Californi

a

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] 

to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme 

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff alleges that several police officers and a library security guard used 

excessive force during an arrest and that he was denied medical care while in jail. 

An allegation of the use of excessive force by a law enforcement officer in 

effectuating an arrest states a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Rutherford v. City 

of Berkeley, 780 F.2d 1444, 1447 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled on other grounds by Graham 

v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989); see also Byrd v. Phoenix Police Dep’t, 885 F.3d 639,

641-42 (9th Cir. 2018) (pro se allegations that police officers “beat the crap out of” plaintiff

and caused him severe injury enough to support a legally cognizable claim under §

1983). 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).

Case 4:19-cv-08204-PJH Document 10 Filed 03/02/20 Page 2 of 5
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 Californi

a

A claim for a violation of a pretrial detainee’s right to adequate medical care arises 

under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment. See Gordon v. 

County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2018). The claim is evaluated 

under an objective deliberate indifference standard. 

[T]he elements of a pretrial detainee's medical care claim

against an individual defendant under the due process clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment are: (i) the defendant made an

intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which

the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those conditions put the plaintiff

at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant

did not take reasonable available measures to abate that risk,

even though a reasonable official in the circumstances would

have appreciated the high degree of risk involved—making the

consequences of the defendant's conduct obvious; and (iv) by

not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff's

injuries.

Id. at 1125. With regard to the third element, the defendant’s conduct must be 

objectively unreasonable -- “a test that will necessarily turn[] on the facts and 

circumstances of each particular care.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). The four-part test articulated in Gordon requires the plaintiff to prove more than 

negligence, but less than subjective intent --something akin to reckless disregard. Id. 

In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or 

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a 

conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction 

or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared 

invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question 

by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 

477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or 

sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. 

In Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007), the Court held that the “Heck rule for 

deferred accrual is called into play only when there exists ‘a conviction or sentence that 

has not been . . . invalidated,’ that is to say, an ‘outstanding criminal judgment.’” Id. at 

391-93 (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87). The Heck rule delays accrual only if there is

Case 4:19-cv-08204-PJH Document 10 Filed 03/02/20 Page 3 of 5
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 Californi

a

an existing conviction on the date the statute of limitations begins to run, which in the 

case of wrongful arrest or wrongful imprisonment claims is when the plaintiff's 

confinement is no longer without legal process, but rather becomes a confinement 

pursuant to legal process – that is, for example, when he or she is bound over by a 

magistrate or arraigned on charges. Id. at 389-90. The Court stated that the contention 

that “an action which would impugn an anticipated future conviction cannot be brought 

until that conviction occurs and is set aside” goes “well beyond Heck” and rejected it. Id. 

at 393 (italics in original). Although the Court was only considering when the statute of 

limitations began running on a false arrest/false imprisonment claim, the discussion 

quoted suggests that Heck does not apply if there is no extant conviction – for instance, if 

plaintiff has only been arrested or charged. 

If a plaintiff files a § 1983 false arrest claim before he or she is convicted, or files 

any other claim related to rulings that likely will be made in a pending or anticipated 

criminal trial, it is within the power of the district court, and accords with common practice, 

to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended. 

Id. at 393-94. If the plaintiff is then convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn 

that conviction, Heck requires dismissal; otherwise, the case may proceed. Id. at 394. 

Plaintiff alleges that several police officers and a library security guard used 

excessive force in arresting him and while transporting him and placing him in jail. He 

also alleges that he was placed in a cell for two to three days and did not receive any 

medical care. 

Plaintiff was charged with resisting, delaying, or obstructing a police officer and a 

public agency official among other charges. Docket No. 7 at 12. It is unclear if he has 

been convicted, if the charges are still pending or if the charges have been dropped. 

Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the excessive force may be barred by Heck because the 

allegations of excessive force directly relate to several of the underlying charges. The 

complaint is dismissed to provide more information regarding the status of the criminal 

charges. He may wish to provide more exhibits regarding the criminal prosecution. If the 

Case 4:19-cv-08204-PJH Document 10 Filed 03/02/20 Page 4 of 5
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

charges are still pending this case may be stayed. 

With respect to the allegations that he was denied medical care, plaintiff must also 

provide more information. He does not elaborate on this claim and fails to identify any 

specific defendant and how they violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff should provide 

more information regarding these allegations and describe what defendants he sought 

medical care from and how they denied care. He should also describe his injuries and 

what medical care was needed.

CONCLUSION 

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than March 27, 

2020, 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). He may 

not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to file amended 

complaint may result in dismissal of this action. 

2. It is the 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 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: 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

March 2, 2020

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

Case 4:19-cv-08204-PJH Document 10 Filed 03/02/20 Page 5 of 5