Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01664/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01664-1/pdf.json

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

---

In addition to Cosby, Cheek has included as defendants: 1

Pam Ahlin, Director; Montoya, Chief of Police Services; Busacca,

Special investigations Officer; Gonzales, Investigation Officer;

Gonzales, Investigation Officer; S. Hicks, Department of Police

Services; Holman, Department of Police Services; Walker, Department

of Police Services; C. Murray, Department of Police Services; V.

Duvall, Department of Police Services; A. Alvarado; Lt. Raboa-O51

[sic]; the Department of Police Services; the Department of Mental

Health; and five John Does.

ORDER RE COMPLAINT

Cheek v. Ahlin , 1:10-cv-1664-RRB - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL CHEEK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EZRA COSBY, Investigation

Officer, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-01664-RRB

ORDER REGARDING COMPLAINT

Michael Cheek, a civil committee in the Coalinga State

Hospital appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action

against various officials and employees.1

I. GRAVAMEN OF COMPLAINT

Cheek’s action arises out of a search of Cheek’s person, his

personal property, clothing, and room for drugs. Cheek alleges that

in conducting a search, officers unnecessarily slammed him against

Case 1:10-cv-01664-RRB Document 11 Filed 04/15/13 Page 1 of 6
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); see 2

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en

banc).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 3

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 4

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)).

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–69; see Moss v. U.S. Secret 5

Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting and applying

(continued...)

ORDER RE COMPLAINT

Cheek v. Ahlin , 1:10-cv-1664-RRB - 2

a wall, handcuffed him, and then conducted a body search, including

an unnecessary digital penetration of his anus.

II. STANDARDS

This Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the

prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or

malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted,” or that “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

immune from such relief.” In determining whether a complaint 2

states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading standard under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint

must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief.” “[T]he pleading standard 3

Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’

but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.”4

This requires the presentation of factual allegations

sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. “[A] complaint 5

Case 1:10-cv-01664-RRB Document 11 Filed 04/15/13 Page 2 of 6
(...continued) 5

Iqbal and Twombly). 

Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 6

Id. 7

Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 8

Id. at 677; OSU Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 9

1069 (9th Cir. 2012); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th

Cir. 2002); see Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Svcs., 436 U.S. 658, 691–95

(1978) (rejecting the concept of respondeat superior in the context

of § 1983, instead requiring individual liability for the

violation).

See Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 10

(9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (abrogated in part on other grounds by

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)).

ORDER RE COMPLAINT

Cheek v. Ahlin , 1:10-cv-1664-RRB - 3

[that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s

liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and

plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Further, although a court 6

must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a

complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions

as true. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 7

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”8

Section 1983 suits do not support vicarious liability, a

plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally

participated in the deprivation of his or her rights. To impose 9

liability on a supervisor, the supervisor’s wrongful conduct must

be sufficiently causally connected to the constitutional

violation. That is, the official must “implement a policy so 10

Case 1:10-cv-01664-RRB Document 11 Filed 04/15/13 Page 3 of 6
Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 11

Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoted 12

with approval in Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco., 570

F.3d 1078, 1096 (9th Cir. 2009)).

ORDER RE COMPLAINT

Cheek v. Ahlin , 1:10-cv-1664-RRB - 4

deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional

rights and is the moving force of the constitutional violation.”11

A person deprives another “of a constitutional

right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an

affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative

acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally

required to do that causes the deprivation of which [the

plaintiff complains].” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,

743 (9th Cir.1978) (Johnson) (emphasis added). The

inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus

on the duties and responsibilities of each individual

defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have

caused a constitutional deprivation. [Citations

omitted.]12

III. DISCUSSION

Cheek seeks compensatory and punitive damages for pain and

suffering and emotional distress, as well as declaratory relief

arising out of a strip search. The Complaint is essentially a

rambling recitation of a series of events, some of which may give

rise to a viable complaint of excessive force in conducting a

search, but for the most part constitutes mere surplusage that does

not constitute actionable conduct under § 1983. Although strip

searches, including invasive searches of the body cavities, do not

per se violate the Eighth Amendment, accepting Cheek’s allegations

as true, as this court must, Cheek raises a colorable claim for

Case 1:10-cv-01664-RRB Document 11 Filed 04/15/13 Page 4 of 6
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320–21 (1986). 13

See Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992). 14

Id. 15

ORDER RE COMPLAINT

Cheek v. Ahlin , 1:10-cv-1664-RRB - 5

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition of

using excessive force that constitutes “the unnecessary and wanton

infliction of pain.” It is well settled that the use of force must 13

be made in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline,

but may not be used to maliciously and sadistically cause harm.14

To determine if the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, this

Court must examine the necessity of force, the relationship between

necessity and amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived

by the responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the

severity of the forceful response.15

Normally, in formulating a Complaint, a plaintiff must

identify who did what and when. In this case, Cheek has alleged

that six Department of Police Service (“DPS”) employees were

involved in the initial seizure of his person, but does not

identify any of them by name. Cheek has also alleged that Officer

Buscacca and five unidentified DPS Officers were involved in the

strip search. It appears from the Complaint that Cheek can identify

the officers involved, although he may not be able to identify

which specific officer did what. For the purposes of his Amended

Complaint, it is sufficient for Cheek to identify the officers

Case 1:10-cv-01664-RRB Document 11 Filed 04/15/13 Page 5 of 6
ORDER RE COMPLAINT

Cheek v. Ahlin , 1:10-cv-1664-RRB - 6

involved without necessarily identifying which specific officer did

which act that violated his constitutional rights. Which Officer

committed the act for which relief may be granted may be

ascertained through discovery should this action proceed to that

point.

IV. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby ORDERS as

follows:

1. The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

2. On or before May 17, 2013, Plaintiff may file an Amended

Complaint consistent with Parts II and III above, specifically:

Plaintiff may proceed on his claim that one or more of the

Defendants used excessive force in initially placing Plaintiff in

handcuffs and in conducting the search of his anus; naming solely

those Defendants who directly participated in the allegedly

unconstitutional strip search, or who failed to perform an act

which he or she is legally required to do that caused the

deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and specifying the

act(s) of each such Defendant that constituted a deprivation of

Plaintiff’s constitutional right.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 15 day of April, 2013. th

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01664-RRB Document 11 Filed 04/15/13 Page 6 of 6