Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04639/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04639-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REICO JAMIE COLON, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

JAMES V. McGRAIL, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-4639 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Dkt. #2 & 5)

Plaintiff, a former inmate at the Alameda County Jail, Santa Rita Facility, 

has filed a pro se complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that on

April 10, 2015, Alameda County deputy sheriffs James V. McGrail and Kevin H.

Estep used excessive force against him while he was in their custody.

Plaintiff also moves (dkt. #2 & 5) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which, good cause shown, is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

“is frivolous, malicious, or 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. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:15-cv-04639-CRB Document 6 Filed 01/06/16 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

27

28 2

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 alleged violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

The Fourth Amendment protects a pre-arraignment detainee from the use

of excessive force, Pierce v. Multnomah County, Oregon, 76 F.3d 1032, 1043

(9th Cir. 1996), whereas the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

protects a post-arraignment pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force,

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989). But to prevail under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 under either constitutional amendment, a detainee must show that

the “force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively

unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015). 

Plaintiff’s conclusory claim that McGrail and Estep used excessive force

against him while he was in the custody of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office

will be dismissed with leave to amend to set forth specific facts showing that the

force used was objectively unreasonable, if possible. Some of the considerations

that may bear on the reasonableness of the force used include the relationship

between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used; the extent of

the plaintiff's injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the

amount of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat

reasonably perceived by the officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively

resisting. See id.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend,

as indicated above, within 28 days of this order. The pleading must be simple

Case 3:15-cv-04639-CRB Document 6 Filed 01/06/16 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

27

28 3

and concise and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order

and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to

file a proper amended complaint within the designated time will result in the

dismissal of this action.

Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original

complaint and all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the

amended complaint will not be considered by the court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 6, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.15\Colon, R.15-4639.dwlta.wpd

Case 3:15-cv-04639-CRB Document 6 Filed 01/06/16 Page 3 of 3