Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02000/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02000-3/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

LARRY JAMES BROOKSHIRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-02000-JDP (PC)

ORDER:

(1) FINDING THAT THE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT STATES 

COGNIZABLE FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENT EXCESSIVE FORCE, 

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

CARVER AND MONTANO, BUT NO 

OTHER VIABLE CLAIMS

(2) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

INDICATE WHETHER HE WISHES TO 

PROCEED WITH CLAIMS DEEMED 

COGNIZABLE IN THIS ORDER OR 

DELAY SERVICE AND FILE 

ANOTHER AMENDED COMPLAINT

ECF No. 10

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Sacramento County Jail, alleges that defendants violated his 

Fourteenth Amendment rights by using excessive force against him and by failing to provide him 

with adequate medical care. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff’s excessive force claims against defendants 

Carver and Montano are suitable to proceed. By contrast, his medical care claims are noncognizable as currently articulated. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff must decide whether to 

proceed with the claims deemed cognizable or delay serving any defendant and file another 

amended complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-02000-DC-JDP Document 11 Filed 07/23/24 Page 1 of 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

2

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)).

Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that, on May 31, 2023, defendants Jason Carver and Gabriel Montano, 

both deputies, transported him to the Sacramento County Jail from Mercy San Juan Hospital. 

Case 2:23-cv-02000-DC-JDP Document 11 Filed 07/23/24 Page 2 of 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

3

ECF No. 10 at 3. He claims that, despite knowing that he had suffered injuries to his left hand 

and back, these defendants forced him to sit in an uncomfortable position for an extended period. 

Id. These allegations are sufficient to state a Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim 

against both defendants.

By contrast, plaintiff’s allegations that, once he was booked into the jail, medical staff 

failed to adequately treat his hand and back injuries, are non-cognizable. At a fundamental level, 

plaintiff has failed to identify any medical staff that allegedly failed to provide him with adequate 

treatment. Instead, he has named Adult Correctional Health as the only defendant to these claims. 

And, to bring a claim against this entity, assuming for the purposes of this order that it is a state 

actor, plaintiff must allege that some policy or custom of the corporation was the motivating 

factor behind the violation of his rights. See Carrea v. California, NO. EDCV 07-1148-CAS 

(MAN), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74772, *27-28 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2008) (concluding that a 

private corporation that is a state actor is subject to the same municipal liability analysis set forth 

in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). It is not enough, as plaintiff 

appears to allege here, that employees of this corporation violated his rights; instead he must 

allege that some policy or custom of the corporation caused his inadequate care. At best, plaintiff 

intimates that the “kite” system for requesting medical care did not result in timely treatment, but 

the complaint fails to explain whether that was a failure of policy or of the individual personnel at 

the jail. He should address this issue if he wishes to pursue a claim against this defendant. 

Alternatively, plaintiff may name the individual providers who failed to give him constitutionally 

adequate care. 

Plaintiff shall, within thirty days of this order’s entry, either indicate in writing that he 

intends to proceed only with this excessive force claims, or submit another amended complaint. 

He is advised that if he selects the latter option, the new amended complaint must be complete in 

itself and that it will entirely supersede his current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 

693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). It should be titled “Third Amended Complaint.”

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days of this order’s entry, plaintiff shall either inform the court in writing 

Case 2:23-cv-02000-DC-JDP Document 11 Filed 07/23/24 Page 3 of 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

4

of his intention to proceed with the claims deemed cognizable in the current complaint, or he shall 

file another amended complaint.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02000-DC-JDP Document 11 Filed 07/23/24 Page 4 of 4