Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01198/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01198-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY FUIMAONO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-1198 FCD EFB P

vs.

FAIRFIELD POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff Anthony Fuimaono, a former pretrial detainee in Solano County’s Fairfield Jail,

filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning the alleged use of

excessive force by police in arresting him and subsequent allegedly inadequate medical

treatment while detained. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Dckt. No. 3. Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Case 2:08-cv-01198-FCD-EFB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 9
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

II. Screening Order

At the time of the filing of the complaint, plaintiff was detained at the Fairfield Jail. 

Accordingly, plaintiff was, at that time, a “prisoner” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and this

court must accordingly review his complaint under that section. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)

(providing that a court must review “a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.”); id. at 

§ 1915A(c) (providing that a “prisoner” is “any person incarcerated or detained in any facility

who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of

criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary

program.”) On review under § 1915A, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant

who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a

claim and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). While

detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __,

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 to relief that

is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability

requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has

acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with

a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and

plausibility of entitlement to relief.

Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). 

Case 2:08-cv-01198-FCD-EFB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 9
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

Plaintiff has pled seven enumerated causes of action: (1) “deliberate indifference” in

connection with the use of allegedly excessive force to arrest him, in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment; (2) “excessive force”“in violation of state law”; (3) assault and battery under

California law; (4) “violation of due process” and “equal protection” in connection with

plaintiff’s arrest and medical treatment; (5) “failure to adequately train” on the parts of

defendants City of Fairfield and Fairfield Police Chief Rainey; (6) “deliberate indifference” in

connection with the allegedly inadequate medical care provided to plaintiff while housed in the

jail, in violation of the “Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments”; and (7) intentional

infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff has named as defendants Fairfield Police Officer

Trojanowski, Fairfield Police Chief Rainey, the City of Fairfield, and Dr. Chris. Plaintiff further

states that he “is unaware of all the defendants who violated his rights and or the proper or

correct names thereto and will amend his complaint once the names, defendants and capacities

have been ascertained.” 

The court finds that, for the limited purposes of § 1915A screening, the complaint states

cognizable claims for relief: (1) against defendants Trojanowski, City of Fairfield, and Rainey

for violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in

connection with the allegedly excessive force used against him in his arrest and the policies

and/or failure to train that caused such excessive force to be used; (2) against currently unknown

defendants for violating his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments for allegedly

failing to provide him with adequate medical treatment; (3) against defendant Trojanowski for

assault and battery in violation of California law; and (4) against defendants Trojanowski, City

of Fairfield, Rainey, and currently unknown persons for intentional infliction of emotional

distress under California law.

The complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief against any defendant for

violating the Fourteenth Amendment in connection with plaintiff’s arrest. The Fourth

Amendment is the exclusive source of constitutional protection against excessive force in the

Case 2:08-cv-01198-FCD-EFB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 9
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

course of arrests, investigatory stops, and other seizures; thus, such action cannot support a due

process claim. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989). Thus, plaintiff’s claim of

unconstitutional excessive force will be construed as a claim under the Fourth Amendment. To

the extent plaintiff has pled a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause,

the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff’s complaint

contains no allegations of discrimination. 

The complaint also fails to state a cognizable claim for relief against any defendant for

violating plaintiff’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment (through deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs) under the Eighth Amendment. As plaintiff’s

allegations concern his pretrial detention (rather than any post-conviction incarceration), his

allegations of inadequate medical treatment must be analyzed under the due process clauses of

the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, rather than the Eighth Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441

U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). Plaintiff additionally grounds his inadequate medical care claim in

the Ninth Amendment. The court can conceive of no Ninth Amendment violation encompassed

by plaintiff’s allegations. See U.S. CONST., Amend. 9 (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of

certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”)

Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim of constitutionally inadequate medical care will be construed as a

claim under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and his Ninth

Amendment claim will be dismissed. 

Plaintiff’s claim of constitutionally inadequate medical care is deficient as to defendant

Chris, however. Plaintiff alleges only generally that Dr. Chris failed to properly medically treat

plaintiff and, incomprehensibly, that

Plaintiff after continuous interference with plaintiff’s medically prescribed

medication Fexoral that repeatedly was stopped and interfered with by jail

medical personnel that resulted in the direct untreatment and exacerbated pain and

medical informalities in trying to maintain consistent medical treatment by Solano

Jail medical staff, Dr. Chris.

////

Case 2:08-cv-01198-FCD-EFB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 4 of 9
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

The court cannot divine from these allegations what plaintiff alleges Dr. Chris did or failed to do

that constituted a failure to treat his medical conditions. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against

Dr. Chris will be dismissed, and the court will grant plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to

attempt again to state a cause of action against Dr. Chris. No other defendant is identified in the

complaint as having interfered with plaintiff’s medical treatment or otherwise causing him to

suffer constitutionally inadequate medical care. The court recognizes that other jail staff, whose

identities are currently unknown to plaintiff, may have interfered with plaintiff’s medical

treatment. As plaintiff has stated facts supporting a claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments for inadequate medical treatment, the court advises plaintiff to seek leave to amend

the complaint when the identities of such defendants are discovered.

Lastly, the complaint fails to state a cognizable state-law based “excessive force” claim

separate from the state law assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress

claims. Plaintiff has not identified the law, separate from those tort doctrines, under which his

state-law “excessive force” claim is brought. 

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Trojanowski, Rainey, and City of

Fairfield with the complaint as narrowed by this order or he may delay serving any defendant

and attempt to state cognizable claims under the Ninth Amendment, the equal protection clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment, state law governing “excessive force,” and/or against defendant

Chris for violating the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment for failing to

provide adequate medical care.

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint, he has 30 days so to do. He is not

obligated to amend his complaint. However, if plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith with the

complaint as narrowed by this order, then within 30 days he must return materials for service of

process enclosed herewith. In this event the court will construe plaintiff’s election as consent to

dismissal without prejudice of plaintiff’s claims under the Ninth Amendment, the equal

protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, state law governing “excessive force,” and

Case 2:08-cv-01198-FCD-EFB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 5 of 9
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

6

against defendant Chris for violating the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment for failing to provide adequate medical care, and defendant Chris will be dismissed

from the action. 

Any amended complaint must adhere to the following requirements:

It must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. E.D. Cal. Local

Rule 220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended

complaint, the prior pleading is superseded.

It must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that plaintiff’s action is brought in

the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true, and must

contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 

Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743 (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if

he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do

that causes the alleged deprivation).

The complaint must contain a caption including the name of the court and the names of

all parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or occurrences,

the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join

multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Unrelated claims

against different defendants must be pursued in multiple lawsuits. “The controlling principle

appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim . . . may join, [] as independent or as

alternate claims, as many claims . . . as the party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple

claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with

unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in

different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit

Case 2:08-cv-01198-FCD-EFB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 6 of 9
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

7

produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation

Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file

without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,

607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of defendants not permitted unless

both commonality and same transaction requirements are satisfied). Plaintiff may not change the

nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in an amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d

at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints). 

 The allegations must be short and plain, simple and direct and describe the relief plaintiff

seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Galbraith v.

County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002). A long, rambling pleading,

including many defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged

constitutional injury or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants very likely

will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing

plaintiff’s action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for violation of

these instructions. 

Plaintiff must sign the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). By signing an amended

complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and has evidentiary support for his

allegations and that for violation of this rule the court may impose sanctions sufficient to deter

repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s claims under the Ninth Amendment, the equal protection clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment, state law governing “excessive force,” and against defendant Chris for

violating the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment for failing to provide

adequate medical care are dismissed with leave to amend. Within 30 days of service of this

order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to attempt to state cognizable claims for denial of these

Case 2:08-cv-01198-FCD-EFB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 7 of 9
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

8

rights. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his complaint.

4. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable claims: (1)

against defendants Trojanowski, City of Fairfield, and Rainey for violating his rights under the

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in connection with the allegedly excessive

force used against him in his arrest and the policies and/or failure to train that caused such

excessive force to be used; (2) against currently unknown defendants for violating his rights

under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments for allegedly failing to provide him with adequate

medical treatment; (3) against defendant Trojanowski for assault and battery in violation of

California law; and (4) against defendants Trojanowski, City of Fairfield, Rainey, and currently

unknown persons for intentional infliction of emotional distress under California law. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. Service is therefore currently appropriate for defendants Trojanowski, Rainey,

and City of Fairfield. With this order the Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank

summons, a copy of the amended complaint filed October 23, 2008, three USM-285 forms and

instructions for service of process on defendants. Within 30 days of service of this order

plaintiff may return the attached Notice of Submission of Documents with the completed

summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and four copies of the October 23, 2008 amended

complaint. The court will transmit them to the United States Marshal for service of process

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants will be required to

respond to plaintiff’s allegations within the deadlines stated in Rule 12(a)(1) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. In this event, the court will construe plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith

as consent to an order dismissing his defective claims without prejudice.

5. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

Dated: June 17, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01198-FCD-EFB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 8 of 9
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

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY FUIMAONO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-1198 FCD EFB P

vs.

FAIRFIELD POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s order

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 3 completed forms USM-285 

 4 copies of the February 5, 2008 Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:08-cv-01198-FCD-EFB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 9 of 9