Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05779/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05779-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY J. HATCHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREG AHERN; et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-5779 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Billy J. Hatcher, formerly an inmate at the Santa Rita facility of the Alameda County Jail,

filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he alleged that he was beaten

by unknown deputies at the jail on July 30, 2007. His complaint is now before the court for

review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. 

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

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. See id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See 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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Case 3:07-cv-05779-SI Document 7 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The complaint states a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force but

does not provide the name of any defendant on whom service of process could be had. Hatcher's

allegations that he was beaten on July 30, 2007 by several deputies who he sues as John Doe

defendants, does state a cognizable claim against them for a due process violation. See Hudson

v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) ("[T]he core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was

applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to

cause harm."); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (Due Process Clause governs pretrial

detainees' claims and Eighth Amendment does not apply).

The only defendants identified by name are "head sheriff" Greg Ahern and Deputy Rice.

The complaint does not allege that either of them had any role in the alleged beating. Greg

Ahern apparently is included as a defendant because he was in charge of the jail, but that is an

insufficient ground for liability. There is no respondeat superior liability under Section 1983,

i.e. no liability under the theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions of an

employee. Liability under Section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation

by the defendant. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Deputy Rice's activities

were two: (1) he took pictures of Hatcher's injuries later in the week, and (2) he took Hatcher

to the "hole, which is housing unit # 9 . . . where I was taken to heal" upon his return from the

hospital. Complaint, p. 5. Neither of these alleged activities gives rise to any liability under §

1983. 

The deputies who allegedly beat Hatcher are sued as John Doe defendants. It is

permissible to use Doe defendant designations to refer to defendants whose names are unknown

to plaintiff in the complaint. Although the use of Doe defendants is acceptable to withstand

dismissal of a complaint at the initial review stage, using Doe defendants creates its own

problem: those persons cannot be served with process in this action until they are identified by

their real names. Because all of the defendants who allegedly violated Hatcher's rights are sued

as Doe defendants, the court cannot order service on anyone. The court will give plaintiff an

opportunity to find their true names. Plaintiff must promptly take steps to discover the full name

(i.e., first and last name) of each Doe defendant and provide that information to the court in an

Case 3:07-cv-05779-SI Document 7 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

amendment to his pleading. The burden remains on the plaintiff; the court will not undertake

to investigate the names and identities of unnamed defendants.

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend no later than

May 30, 2008. If plaintiff has not provided a full name for each of the John Doe defendants and

address for service on them by the deadline, the action will be dismissed without prejudice to

plaintiff filing a new action if and when he learns their true identities. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2008 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05779-SI Document 7 Filed 03/12/08 Page 3 of 3