Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00247/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00247-0/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

1

 Jones has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 3.

Case No. C 16-0247 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BRANDON L. JONES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, et

al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 16-0247 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Brandon L. Jones, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 The court has granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons stated below, the court dismisses the complaint and

gives Jones leave to amend to specify his claims for relief.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review 

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

Case 3:16-cv-00247-EDL Document 5 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 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

2

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

3

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

4

 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

5

 See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

6

 See Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 493 U.S. 103, 106 (1989). 

7

 See Easton v. Crossland Mortgage Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997). 

8

 See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 697 (1976). 

Case No. C 16-0247 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

2

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.2

 In its

review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that 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.3

 Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally

construed.4 

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.5

B. Jones’ Claims

Jones’ complaint is difficult to decipher. He briefly describes several events, occurring

on different dates with different officers from the Oakland Police Department. But, as the

complaint is currently pled, the court cannot determine exactly what Jones’ claims are. In order

to seek redress under Section 1983, a plaintiff must assert the violation of a federal “right.”6

That is, it must be clear from the face of the complaint that there is a federal question.7 To state

such a claim, Jones must show a specific constitutional or federal guarantee safeguarding the

interests that have been invaded.8 Jones will be given leave to amend to comply with these

requirements if he can do so in good faith. 

Case 3:16-cv-00247-EDL Document 5 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 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

9

 See Monteiro v. Tempe Union High School Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). 

10 See Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d

1071, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 629 F.3d 1135,

1140 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (claim that alleged harmful treatment but mentioned nothing

about disparate treatment was properly dismissed). 

11 See City of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio v. Buckeye Cmty. Hope Found., 538 U.S. 188, 193-94

(2003). 

12 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). 

13 See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).

14 See Board of Cty. Comm’rs. of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). 

Case No. C 16-0247 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

3

To the extent Jones intended to raise an equal protection claim, he fails to do so. He

provides facts about several events from when he was not yet incarcerated, and seems to suggest

that the defendants arrested him instead when they could have arrested others. However, a

plaintiff alleging denial of equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on race or other

suspect classification must plead intentional unlawful discrimination or allege facts that are at

least susceptible of an inference of discriminatory intent.9

 To state a claim for relief, the plaintiff

must allege that the defendant state actor acted at least in part because of plaintiff’s membership

in a protected class.10 Proof of a discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show an equal

protection violation based on race.11 Jones has not proffered enough facts to “raise a right to

relief above the speculative level” to support an equal protection claim.12

In addition, Jones names the Oakland Police Department as a defendant. Local

governments, such as the Oakland Police Department are “persons” subject to liability under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 where official policy or custom causes a constitutional tort.13 However, a city or

county may not be held vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under the

theory of respondeat superior.14 To impose municipal liability under Section 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

Case 3:16-cv-00247-EDL Document 5 Filed 03/24/16 Page 3 of 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

15 See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). 

16 See Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1085 (9th Cir.

2013). 

17 See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (liability under § 1983 arises only

upon a showing of personal participation by a defendant). 

18 Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 

19 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Case No. C 16-0247 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

4

the moving force behind the constitutional violation.15 Here, Jones has not alleged sufficient

facts to state a municipal liability claim against the Oakland Police Department. 

If Jones can do so in good faith, he may amend his complaint to allege that each

individual defendant deprived him of a constitutional right. Specifically, Jones must allege facts

showing that each defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a

federally protected right, and what that right is.16 He should describe what each defendant did

(or failed to do) that caused a violation of his constitutional rights so that each proposed

defendant has fair notice of his allegedly wrongful conduct.17 Even at the pleading stage, “[a]

plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally

involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.”18 Although the federal rules require brevity in

pleading, a complaint must be sufficient to give the defendants “fair notice” of the claim and the

“grounds upon which it rests.”19

As the complaint currently reads, Jones has not stated a cognizable claim for relief. 

However, if Jones believes that he can cure the deficiencies addressed above, he may amend his

complaint to do so.

II. CONCLUSION

The court orders as follows:

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Jones shall file an

AMENDED COMPLAINT within thirty days from the date this order is filed. The amended

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 16-0247 PSG

Case 3:16-cv-00247-EDL Document 5 Filed 03/24/16 Page 4 of 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

20 London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

21 See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case No. C 16-0247 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

5

(PR)) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Jones may not incorporate

material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint within

thirty days and in accordance with this order will result in a finding that further leave to amend

would be futile, and this action will be dismissed.

2. Jones is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

“[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged

in the amended complaint.”20 Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer

defendants.21 

3. It is Jones’ responsibility to prosecute this case. He 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: PAUL S. GREWAL 

United States Magistrate Judge

3/24/2016

Case 3:16-cv-00247-EDL Document 5 Filed 03/24/16 Page 5 of 5