Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04227/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04227-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN A. ALVARADO, 

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

DEPUTY CRAWFORD,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-4227 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

(Docket Nos. 2, 4)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Contra Costa Detention Center, has filed a pro se

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that on November 5, 2003

“Deputy Crawford” used excessive force in the course of arresting him. Plaintiff

has also filed two motions seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (docket nos. 2,

4). In this order, the Court reviews Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915A and dismisses the complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Crawford shot at him “through the truck

door” after Plaintiff jumped into his vehicle and closed the door upon being told

by the deputy that he had a warrant for robbery, which Plaintiff knew was false. 

Plaintiff further alleges that he was later arrested for resisting arrest and other

charges related to this incident. Because Plaintiff has not provided the Court with

sufficient information to proceed, the complaint must be dismissed with leave to

amend.

Case 3:06-cv-04227-TEH Document 8 Filed 04/09/07 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

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).

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

An allegation of the use of excessive force by a law enforcement officer in

effectuating an arrest ordinarily states a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See

Rutherford v. City of Berkeley, 780 F.2d 1444, 1447 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled

on other grounds by Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Excessive force

claims which arise in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free

citizen are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard. See

Graham, 490 U.S. at 394-95; Forrester v. City of San Diego, 25 F.3d 804, 806

(9th Cir. 1994). 

However, the action cannot proceed here because Plaintiff has not

provided the Court with the information necessary to determine whether a

cognizable claim for relief has been stated. In order to proceed, Plaintiff must

Case 3:06-cv-04227-TEH Document 8 Filed 04/09/07 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 3

first identify the city in which the incident occurred and the police (or peace)

force by whom “Deputy Crawford” was employed so that the Court can

determine whether the action was properly filed in this district. Plaintiff should

also provide the Court with any further identifying information, including a first

name or initial, so that the Court can attempt to have Defendant served with the

complaint, if it is found sufficient. 

Plaintiff has also informed the Court that he was arrested and prosecuted

for resisting arrest in connection with this incident, but has not informed the

Court the outcome of that case. Specifically, he has not informed the Court

whether he was convicted of resisting arrest. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff

must inform the Court of the outcome of that criminal prosecution. That is

because, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would

render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove

that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by

executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such

determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of

habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). 

A claim for use of excessive force during the course of an arrest may not

necessarily imply the invalidity of the arrest or conviction and therefore may not

be barred by Heck. See Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 2006);

Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998); Smithart

v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952-53 (9th Cir. 1996). However, in California, a

conviction for resisting arrest pursuant to California Penal Code § 148 may be

lawfully obtained only if the officers do not use excessive force in the course of

making that arrest. Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 696 (9th Cir.2005) (en

Case 3:06-cv-04227-TEH Document 8 Filed 04/09/07 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 4

banc). Thus, if a plaintiff has a § 148 conviction based on acts of resistance

during the course of arrest, Heck bars claims that the police officers used

excessive force during the course of that arrest. Id. at 697. Therefore, in the

amended complaint, Plaintiff must inform the Court of the outcome of the

criminal prosecution he faced for resisting arrest. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, as

indicated above. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint which complies with

this order within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. The amendment

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

"COURT ORDERED AMENDED COMPLAINT" on the first page. Failure to

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of the complaint

without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff 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." London v. Coopers

& Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an

amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). 

3. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must 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 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

4. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED without prejudice 

(docket nos. 2, 4.) The Court will review Plaintiff's requests anew should he file

Case 3:06-cv-04227-TEH Document 8 Filed 04/09/07 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 5

an amended complaint which complies with this order. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 04/06/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04227-TEH Document 8 Filed 04/09/07 Page 5 of 5