Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05688/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05688-0/pdf.json

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

---

ORDER – No. 17-cv-05688-LB

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

FABIAN JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SEVERAL DEPUTIES, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 17-cv-05688-LB 

ORDER OF SERVICE 

Re: ECF No. 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Fabian Johnson, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail in San Bruno, filed this pro se 

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. 

(ECF No. 3.)1

 His complaint is now before the court for review. This order finds that the 

complaint states a cognizable claim and orders service of process on the defendants. 

STATEMENT 

Mr. Johnson claims that deputies used excessive force on him on July 9, 2017, at the San 

Francisco County Jail in San Bruno. His complaint alleges the following: While naked for a strip 

search at the jail, Mr. Johnson was handcuffed, tossed to the ground, beaten, and dragged by 

 

1

 Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint cites are to the ECFgenerated page numbers at the top of the documents. 

Case 3:17-cv-05688-SK Document 5 Filed 10/11/17 Page 1 of 5
ORDER – No. 17-cv-05688-LB 2

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

several deputies. He then was taken to a safety cell, where deputies further beat him. Mr. Johnson 

alleges that San Francisco Sheriff’s Deputies Chiu, Lavatoria, Sanchez, Kerraine, Miller, Pyun and 

Belen were “involved or present” when the force was used. (ECF No. 1 at 9.) At some points Mr. 

Johnson was facing away from the deputies pursuant to their commands, but was able to observe 

some acts by some deputies: Deputy Miller forcefully shoved Mr. Johnson’s face into the wall of 

the safety cell, Deputy Pyun told Mr. Johnson to stop talking, and Deputy Lavatoria punched Mr. 

Johnson in the face about twenty times. (Id. at 6, 7.) Senior Deputy De La Torre oversaw and 

facilitated the use of force and said, “‘I don’t care if you guys break his fucking arm.’” (Id. at 4.) 

Mr. Johnson was “doing nothing at all to deserve” the beating. (Id. at 9.) 

ANALYSIS 

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). Pro se

complaints must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

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). 

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a post-arraignment pretrial 

detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 

386, 395 n.10 (1989) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-39 (1979)). To prove an excessive 

force claim under § 1983, a pretrial detainee must show only that the “force purposely or 

knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 

2466, 2473 (2015). The court assumes, for present purposes, that Mr. Johnson was a pretrial 

detainee at the relevant time. If he was a convict, a more stringent Eighth Amendment standard 

would apply to his claim. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (whenever prison 

Case 3:17-cv-05688-SK Document 5 Filed 10/11/17 Page 2 of 5
ORDER – No. 17-cv-05688-LB 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

officials stand accused of using excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the 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). 

The pro se complaint, liberally construed, states a cognizable § 1983 claim against San 

Francisco Sheriff’s Deputies Chiu, Lavatoria, Sanchez, Kerraine, Miller, Pyun, Belen and De La 

Torre for the use of excessive force in violation of Mr. Johnson’s right to due process. Senior 

Deputy De La Torre allegedly made a comment that approved the beating that was underway. The 

other deputies allegedly were “involved or present” during the use of force. Even officials who 

have not actually used force may be liable, if they have failed to intervene to prevent the use of 

excessive force on a prisoner. See Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995). 

CONCLUSION 

1. Liberally construed, the complaint states a cognizable § 1983 claim against San Francisco 

Sheriff’s Deputies Chiu, Lavatoria, Sanchez, Kerraine, Miller, Pyun, Belen and De La Torre for 

using excessive force in violation of Mr. Johnson’s right to due process. All other defendants and 

claims are dismissed. 

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint, a copy of all the documents in the case 

file, and a copy of the “consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction” form upon the 

following eight defendants, all of whom apparently worked at the San Francisco County Jail in 

San Bruno: 

-San Francisco Sheriff’s Deputy Chiu 

-San Francisco Sheriff’s Deputy Lavatoria 

-San Francisco Sheriff’s Deputy Sanchez 

-San Francisco Sheriff’s Deputy Kerraine 

-San Francisco Sheriff’s Deputy Miller 

-San Francisco Sheriff’s Deputy Pyun 

-San Francisco Sheriff’s Deputy Belen 

-San Francisco Sheriff’s Deputy De La Torre (senior deputy) 

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for 

dispositive motions is set: 

Case 3:17-cv-05688-SK Document 5 Filed 10/11/17 Page 3 of 5
ORDER – No. 17-cv-05688-LB 4

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

 a. No later than January 12, 2018, the defendants must file and serve a motion for 

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If the defendants are of the opinion that this case 

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, the defendants must so inform the court prior to the 

date the motion is due. If the defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the defendants must 

provide to the plaintiff a new Rand notice regarding summary judgment procedures at the time 

they file such a motion. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012). If the motion is 

based on nonexhaustion of administrative remedies, the defendants must comply with the notice 

and procedural requirements in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). 

 b. The plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the summary judgment or other 

dispositive motion no later than February 9, 2018. The plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and 

warning regarding summary judgment provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to 

any motion for summary judgment. 

 c. If the defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and served 

no later than February 23, 2018. 

4. The plaintiff is provided the following notices and warnings about the procedures for 

motions for summary judgment: 

The defendants [may make] a motion for summary judgment by which they seek to 

have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. [¶] Rule 56 tells 

you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. 

Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of 

material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the 

result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing 

makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations 

(or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. 

Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that 

contradict the facts shown in the defendants' declarations and documents and show 

that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own 

evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against 

you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be 

no trial. 

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). If a defendant files a motion for summary 

judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, he or she is seeking to have the case 

dismissed. A plaintiff faced with such a motion can oppose it using the same methods as described 

Case 3:17-cv-05688-SK Document 5 Filed 10/11/17 Page 4 of 5
ORDER – No. 17-cv-05688-LB 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

above for other summary judgment motions. As with other defense summary judgment motions, if 

a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is granted, the case 

will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

5. All communications by the plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant’s counsel 

by mailing a true copy of the document to the defendant's counsel. The court may disregard any 

document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant's 

counsel has been designated, the plaintiff may serve a document by mailing a true copy of the 

document directly to the defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents 

must be mailed to counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

6. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No 

further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required 

before the parties may conduct discovery. 

7. The plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. The plaintiff must promptly keep the 

court informed of any 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). The plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in 

every pending case every time he is moved to a new facility or is released from custody. 

8. The plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this case 

on any document he submits to the court for consideration in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 10, 2017 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-05688-SK Document 5 Filed 10/11/17 Page 5 of 5