Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00017/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00017-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD BRELO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DONALD TRUMP, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-00017-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 13, 14, 22 

Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION 

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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim 

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) 

(citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed 

Case 4:19-cv-00017-PJH Document 33 Filed 02/08/19 Page 1 of 6
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] 

to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme 

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff states that he was held in unsafe conditions and was beaten by sheriff’s 

deputies. 

Inmates who sue prison officials for injuries suffered while in custody may do so 

under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause or, if not yet 

convicted, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Bell v. Wolfish, 

441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979); Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (en banc). But under both clauses, the inmate must show that the prison 

official acted with deliberate indifference. Id. at 1068.1 Under the Fourteenth 

 

1 The standard of culpability for a claim for use of excessive force is different. See 

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (convicted prisoner’s claim for use of

excessive force under 8th Amendment requires that prisoner show that officials applied 

force maliciously and sadistically to cause harm); Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 

2466, 2473 (2015) (pretrial detainee’s claim for use of excessive force under 14th 

Amendment requires that detainee show that force purposely or knowingly used against 

Case 4:19-cv-00017-PJH Document 33 Filed 02/08/19 Page 2 of 6
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Amendment, a pretrial detainee plaintiff also must show that the challenged prison 

condition amounts to punishment because it is not “reasonably related to a legitimate 

governmental objective.” Byrd v. Maricopa Cty. Board of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 924 

(9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 539). If the particular restriction or condition is 

reasonably related, without more, it does not amount to punishment. Bell, 441 U.S. at 

538-39. But cf. Shorter v. Baca, 895 F.3d 1176, 1189 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding jail officials 

not entitled to deference where they offered no reason for keeping mentally ill inmates 

shackled and unclothed, without food, water, or access to a toilet for hours at a time). 

Most of plaintiff’s complaint states that there is a vast conspiracy of United States 

Presidents, the military and other government officials against the country. These 

allegations are frivolous and are dismissed with prejudice from this action. Plaintiff does 

briefly state that he was assaulted by deputies on repeated occasions and kept in a hot 

car where he suffered heat stroke. These claims are dismissed with leave to amend to 

provide more information. He should identify specific defendants and describe their 

actions. Plaintiff should also indicate if he is a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should only discuss his allegations against defendants at 

Mendocino County Jail. If plaintiff continues to present allegations of conspiracy against 

United States Government officials this entire case may be dismissed, regardless if there 

are cognizable claims against the jail officials. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 

1179 (9th Cir.1996). 

Furthermore, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to 

provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 

U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or 

other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are 

exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff states the he did not exhaust because his 

complaint involved issues not in the jail. Those claims have been dismissed. To proceed 

 

him was objectively unreasonable). 

Case 4:19-cv-00017-PJH Document 33 Filed 02/08/19 Page 3 of 6
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

with claims against jail officials, plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies. If 

plaintiff seeks to exhaust his administrative remedies, this case will be dismissed without 

prejudice and he may refile when the claims have been exhausted. 

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to appoint counsel. There is no constitutional right 

to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), 

and although district courts may "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is 

proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that does 

not give the courts the power to make "coercive appointments of counsel." Mallard v. 

United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an 

indigent litigant only in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires 

an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the 

plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). The issues are not 

complex and the court will consider appointing counsel if the case continues past 

screening. The motion to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 13) is DENIED without prejudice. 

Plaintiff’s remaining motions (Docket Nos. 14, 22) are DENIED as frivolous. 

2. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the 

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than March 9, 

2019, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the 

words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint 

completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he 

wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may 

not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to file an 

amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case. 

3. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

Case 4:19-cv-00017-PJH Document 33 Filed 02/08/19 Page 4 of 6
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed 

“Notice of 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: February 8, 2019 

 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

 

Case 4:19-cv-00017-PJH Document 33 Filed 02/08/19 Page 5 of 6
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD BRELO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DONALD TRUMP, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-00017-PJH 

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 February 8, 2019, 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. 

Richard Brelo ID: A#79936 

Mendocino County Sheriff's Office

Corrections Division 

951 Low Gap Road

Ukiah, CA 95482 

Dated: February 8, 2019 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Kelly Collins, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

Case 4:19-cv-00017-PJH Document 33 Filed 02/08/19 Page 6 of 6