Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05402/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05402-0/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

BENJAMIN CHOYCE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, OFFICER MARTIN,

OFFICER CHIBA, OFFICER LOZANO,

LIEUTENANT TILTON, SERGEANT

HASKELL, SERGEANT LASATER,

S.D. ANDERSON, S.D. LEIU, OFFICER

PINEDA, LIEUTENANT WONG,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-5402 JSW (PR)

ORDER SERVING EXCESSIVE

FORCE CLAIM

(Docket Nos. 2, 4)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the Santa Rita County Jail, filed this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining of violations of his civil rights during

his detention. Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set

forth below, the Court will order the complaint served. A separate order issued this date

grants Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis applications (docket nos. 2, 4).

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Plaintiff alleges that an unreasonable amount of force was used against him on

November 29, 2008, when he objected to a new cell mate after officers at the jail asked

him to move to the top bunk of his cell. Plaintiff alleges that after he explained that he

could not get on the top bunk and that he and another inmate would have trouble being

placed together, several officers and Sergeant Haskell pulled him to the ground, where he

was placed in handcuffs and leg cuffs and beaten while immobilized and removed him to

a rubber room, where he remained until the following day, when he discovered that his

belongings were missing. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages.

Case 3:09-cv-05402-JSW Document 5 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 6
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

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. 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).

ANALYSIS

Liberally construed, the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint present a cognizable

claim against named Defendants Martin, Pineda, Lieutenant Tilton and Sergeant Haskell. 

However, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department is DISMISSED from this action. A

city or county may not be held vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of its

employees under the theory of respondeat superior, see Board of County Comm'rs v.

Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691

(1978) (local governments cannot be liable under § 1983 under respondeat superior

theory); Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1534 (9th Cir. 1995). There is no

liability under § 1983 solely because one is responsible for the actions or omissions of

another. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, Plaintiff has

not set forth any allegations against Defendants Chiba, Lozano, Lasater, Anderson, Lieu

or Wong. As such, Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED without

Case 3:09-cv-05402-JSW Document 5 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 6
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

prejudice and they are TERMINATED from this action.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against Officer Martin, Badge # 1892,

Officer Pineda, Badge # 1733, Lieutenant Tilton and Sergeant Haskell of the San

Francisco County Jail. Defendants Lasater, Chiba, Anderson, Leiu, Lozano and the

San Francisco Sheriff’s Department are DISMISSED and TERMINATED from this

action. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall

serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint and all attachments thereto

with all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon all Defendants listed above at

the San Francisco County Jail. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the

San Francisco City Attorney’s Office and on Plaintiff.

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:

a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order, Defendant

shall either file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, or a notice

to the Court that he is of the opinion that this matter cannot be resolved by dispositive

motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall

conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 

Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor

qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If defendant is of the

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform

the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 

All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on the Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the

Court and served on Defendant no later than thirty (30) days from the date Defendant’s

motion is filed. The following notice is for the benefit of all pro se litigants:

Case 3:09-cv-05402-JSW Document 5 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 6
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

The defendants have made 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

defendant's 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 in favor of defendants, your case will be

dismissed and there will be no trial.

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary

judgment must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on

every essential element of his claim). 

c. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

Plaintiff's opposition is filed. 

d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is

due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 

3. 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.

4. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be

granted. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than five days prior

Case 3:09-cv-05402-JSW Document 5 Filed 05/03/10 Page 4 of 6
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

to the deadline sought to be extended.

5. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendant,

or Defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

document to Defendant or Defendant’s counsel.

6. 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 for failure to

prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2010 

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05402-JSW Document 5 Filed 05/03/10 Page 5 of 6
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

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN CHOYCE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SF SHERIFF DEPT. et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-05402 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 3, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Benjamin C. Choyce

#2380465

5325 Broder Blvd.

Dublin, CA 94568

Dated: May 3, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:09-cv-05402-JSW Document 5 Filed 05/03/10 Page 6 of 6