Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01330/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01330-1/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 

JOHN BOJESCU, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT, et al. 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1330-EFB P (TEMP) 

ORDER GRANTING IFP AND DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

II. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 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. 

Case 2:15-cv-01330-EFB Document 12 Filed 05/12/16 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

§ 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). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

III. Screening Order 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to § 1915A and finds that the 

allegations are too vague and conclusory to state a cognizable claim for relief. The complaint 

states only that plaintiff was detained by two deputies of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s 

Case 2:15-cv-01330-EFB Document 12 Filed 05/12/16 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

Department on July 19, 2014 and that he would now “like to be compensated for my personal 

injuries and pain and suffering.” Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 3. Although plaintiff appears to 

believe that the deputies used excessive force against him, he does not identify any specific 

claims for relief in the complaint, nor does he say anything that could inform the court or any 

defendant what happened to him, who did it, and why that action violated one or more of his 

rights under the Constitution. Under the basic rules of pleading a civil rights claim in federal 

court, discussed below, the allegations fail to state a cognizable claim. To proceed, plaintiff must 

file an amended complaint. 

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal 

constitutional or statutory right; 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); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 

930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 

An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the 

defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between 

the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. 

Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable for the 

unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 

(2009). Because respondeat superior liability is inapplicable to § 1983 suits, “a plaintiff must 

plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has 

violated the Constitution.” Id. 

The Ninth Circuit has laid out the factors for assessing a pre-trial detainee’s allegation of 

excessive force as follows: 

The Due Process clause protects pretrial detainees from the use of 

excessive force that amounts to punishment. Graham v. Connor,

490 U.S. 386, 395 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). 

Although the Supreme Court has not expressly decided whether the 

Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and 

seizures continues to protect individuals during pretrial detention, 

id., we have determined that the Fourth Amendment sets the 

“applicable constitutional limitations” for considering claims of 

excessive force during pretrial detention. Pierce v. Multnomah 

Case 2:15-cv-01330-EFB Document 12 Filed 05/12/16 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

County, 76 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 

1006, 117 S.Ct. 506, 136 L.Ed.2d 397 (1996). Graham therefore 

explicates the standards applicable to a pretrial detention excessive 

force claim in this circuit. 

In Graham, the Supreme Court explained that determining whether 

a defendant officer's use of force was “reasonable” under the Fourth 

Amendment “requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality 

of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests 

against the countervailing government interests at stake.” 490 U.S. 

at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (internal quotations omitted). This analysis 

requires “careful attention to the facts and circumstances in each 

particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether 

the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or 

others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to 

evade arrest by flight.” Id.; see also Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 

1, 8–9, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (whether seizure is 

reasonable under the Fourth Amendment is judged by the “totality 

of the circumstances”). 

Finally, the Graham Court admonished courts to examine the 

circumstances underlying a Fourth Amendment claim from the 

viewpoint of the reasonable officer on the scene, “rather than with 

the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865. 

For, “[t]he calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for 

the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second 

judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly 

evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a 

particular situation.” Id. at 396–97, 109 S.Ct. 1865. 

Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1197-98 (9th Cir.2002).

Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint that sets forth facts which 

meet this standard. Plaintiff must allege a cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant and 

sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-

27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend 

to correct any deficiency in their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended 

complaint, the amended complaint shall clearly set forth the claims and allegations against each 

defendant. 

Any amended complaint must not exceed the scope of this order and may not add new, 

unrelated claims. Further, any amended complaint must cure the deficiencies identified above 

and also adhere to the following requirements: 

Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 

participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 

Case 2:15-cv-01330-EFB Document 12 Filed 05/12/16 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

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 

legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). It must also contain a caption 

including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See Local Rule 110. 

IV. Summary of Order 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 

accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 

concurrently herewith. 

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The amended 

complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “First Amended 

Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order will result in this action being dismissed for failure 

to state a claim. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will 

proceed with service of process by the United States Marshal. 

DATED: May 12, 2016.

Case 2:15-cv-01330-EFB Document 12 Filed 05/12/16 Page 5 of 5