Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01384/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01384-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

ARTHUR MATUS, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

PAUL VAN DALEN, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1384 REC/LJO

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGED

VIOLATION OF EIGHTH

AMENDMENT (Doc. 22) 

On November 2, 2005, plaintiff, who is incarcerated and

proceeding in pro per, filed a Complaint for damages against

defendants Paul Van Dalen and Richard Manfredi, Jr. The

Complaint alleges in pertinent part:

My 8 Amendment right to be protected and th

free from cruel & unusual punishment was

violated when Officer Paul Van Dalen

repeatedly kicked me after I was injured,

cornered, and openly submitted myself to

arrest. S.G.T. Richard Manfredi Jr. was on

my back with his pistol on the back of my

head. Threatening to kill me. And with his

knee brutally assualted [sic] me in my

buttocks and testicles.

Case 1:05-cv-01384-LJO -LJO Document 28 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendants move to dismiss the claim for alleged violation

of the Eighth Amendment for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. 

The court has reviewed the record herein and concludes that

dismissal of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim is required.

There is no question that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition

against cruel and unusual punishment applies only after

conviction and sentence. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393 &

n.6 (1989). “[E]xcessive force claims arising before or during

arrest are to be analyzed exclusively under the fourth

amendment’s reasonableness standard rather than the due process

standard ....” Reed v. Hoyt, 909 F.2d 324, 329 (9 Cir. 1989), th

cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1250 (1991). Therefore, to the extent

that plaintiff is alleging excessive force during his arrest, his

claim must be construed as alleging a violation of the Fourth

Amendment, not the Eighth Amendment.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim in the Complaint

alleging excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment is

granted and the claimed violation of the Eighth Amendment is

dismissed with prejudice.

2. In all further proceedings in this action, plaintiff’s

claim alleging excessive force during his arrest will be

construed and resolved as a claim of excessive force in violation

of the Fourth Amendment.

///

Case 1:05-cv-01384-LJO -LJO Document 28 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01384-LJO -LJO Document 28 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 3