Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01980/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01980-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED FITZGERALD HOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

FINDING THAT THE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT STATES A COGNIZABLE 

EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS MARA, PATTON, AND 

ANDERSON

ECF No. 17

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY 

OF ROSEVILLE BE DISMISSED

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges that defendants Anderson, Mara, Patton—all officers 

with the Roseville police department—and the city of Roseville itself, violated his rights. 

Specifically, he alleges that the officer defendants used excessive force against him during his 

arrest and committed an illegal search and seizure. ECF No. 17 at 3-4. These allegations are 

cognizable and should proceed past screening. By contrast, plaintiff’s claim against Roseville 

itself for a false prosecution should, for the reasons stated hereafter, be dismissed.

Case 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP Document 18 Filed 07/29/24 Page 1 of 6
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

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 

dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Id. 

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that the officer defendants used excessive force against him during an 

arrest on July 31, 2020. ECF No. 17 at 3-4. He claims that he was sleeping in his car with the 

music on when officers Mara and Patton woke him. Id. He claims that Patton unnecessarily 

Case 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP Document 18 Filed 07/29/24 Page 2 of 6
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

pointed a gun at his chest and Mara punched him in the face, opened the car door, and forced him 

onto the ground. Id. Plaintiff claims that defendant Anderson was present and orchestrated the 

misconduct alleged above. Id. Construed liberally, the complaint states a viable claim for failure 

to intervene against Anderson. Id. These excessive force claims fall under the Fourth 

Amendment insofar as plaintiff alleges that he was a free citizen at the time of the arrest. These 

claims also state a potentially cognizable claim for illegal search and seizure of his vehicle, also 

falling under the Fourth Amendment. 

Plaintiff’s other claim is not cognizable. He alleges that Roseville itself violated his rights 

by falsely charging him in connection with the incident described above. Id. at 5. This claim 

fails because, when a district attorney brings charges in California, they act as an officer of the 

state rather than of the city or county. See Sanders v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 226 F. 

App’x 687, 692 (9th Cir. 2007) (“When deciding whether to prosecute an individual, a district 

attorney in California acts not as an officer of the city or county, but as an officer of the state. 

The City and County of San Francisco thus cannot be held liable for Hallinan’s decision to 

convene a grand jury, to secure an indictment against appellants, and subsequently to have them 

arrested.”). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

1. This action shall proceed based on plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force 

and illegal search and seizure claims against defendants Mara, Patton, and Anderson.

2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, a summons, a Notice 

of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed April 

15, 2024, ECF No. 17.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court with the 

following documents:

a. one completed summons for the defendants;

b. three completed USM-285 forms; and 

c. four copies of the signed April 15, 2024 complaint.

Case 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP Document 18 Filed 07/29/24 Page 3 of 6
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

4

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 

Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the U.S. Marshals Service to 

serve the above defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, without payment of 

costs by plaintiff.

5. The failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s false prosecution claim against the City of 

Roseville be DISMISSED without leave to amend as non-cognizable.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP Document 18 Filed 07/29/24 Page 4 of 6
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

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED FITZGERALD HOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP (PC)

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS

In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff must submit:

 1 completed summons form

 3 completed forms USM-285 

 4 copies of the April 15, 2024 complaint

Case 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP Document 18 Filed 07/29/24 Page 5 of 6
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

6

_________________________________

Plaintiff

Dated: 

Case 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP Document 18 Filed 07/29/24 Page 6 of 6