Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00855/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00855-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN R. GRAY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF HAYWARD POLICE

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-0855 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE;

DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTION

OR, ALTERNATIVELY,

NOTICE THAT SUCH 

MOTION IS NOT

WARRANTED

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that officers of the Hayward Police

Department used excessive force during the course of his arrest. He seeks money damages.

By separate order filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff has been granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that 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. See id. §

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

Case 3:05-cv-00855-MMC Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988).

B. Legal Claims

The use of excessive force by law enforcement officers in effectuating an arrest states a

valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Rutherford v. City of Berkeley, 780 F.2d 1444, 1447

(9th Cir. 1986). Excessive force claims that arise in the context of an arrest or investigatory

stop of a free citizen are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard. See

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394-95 (1989). The reasonableness inquiry in excessive

force cases is an objective one, the question being whether the officers' actions are objectively

reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their

underlying intent or motivation, and without the "20/20 vision of hindsight." See id. at 396-97. 

Here, plaintiff alleges the following sequence of events:

On April 28, 2004, he stepped outside his house and heard “get down, shoot him, theirs

[sic] a color[ed] guy a nigger around the building.” He then saw two men approach him with

rifles, wearing cargo pants and black shirts. Because they did not tell him they were police

officers, he ran up a flight of stairs. When he saw a man pointing a rifle at him, he said, “I

surrender please don’t kill me.” He put his hands up and jumped off the patio and fell to the

ground. He then was tackled by defendant Officer J. Cristofani (“Cristofani”) and defendant

Officer D. Dorn (“Dorn”), and immediately handcuffed. While plaintiff remained handcuffed,

Cristofani and Dorn “beat him,” after which beating Officer Carpenter approached and kicked

plaintiff in the back. The three officers then dragged plaintiff to the stairs, at which point

defendant Officer E. Hutchinson (“Hutchinson”) and defendant Officer B. Matthews

(“Matthews”) approached. Hutchinson punched plaintiff in the face, hit plaintiff in the back,

face and arms with his baton and pepper-sprayed plaintiff. Matthews then hit plaintiff in the

face and on the top of the head with his rifle, and told plaintiff he would shoot him. Hutchinson

next told Officer Divinagavica to release a police dog to bite plaintiff, and the dog bit him on

Case 3:05-cv-00855-MMC Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1Plaintiff also includes as a defendant an unnamed “K-9 officer.” Service is not ordered

on this officer because plaintiff states his name is “unknown.”

3

the legs and wrist. While plaintiff was bleeding profusely from his head and face, defendant

Officer Olsen slapped plaintiff, told him to “shut up,” and ordered another officer to put a

cloak over plaintiff’s head. Thereafter, plaintiff was taken to the hospital. At all times during

the beating, plaintiff remained handcuffed.

Liberally construed, the above allegations state a cognizable claim for relief under

§ 1983 against each of the defendants for the use of excessive force.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

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

serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint in this matter, all attachments

thereto, and a copy of this order upon the City of Hayward Police Department, and upon

Officer B. Matthews, Officer J. Cristofani, Officer D. Olsen, Officer D. Dorn, and

OfficerE. Hutchinson1 at the City of Hayward Police Department in Hayward,

California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and the City Attorney

of the City of Hayward. 

3. 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, defendants shall

file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be

supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 56, including all incident reports, arrest records, and medical records

relating to the allegations in the complaint. 

Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor qualified

immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any 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.

Case 3:05-cv-00855-MMC Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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

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

motion is filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to

plaintiffs:

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 defendants’ 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.

See 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, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986) (party opposing

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

every essential element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to

defendants' motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent by plaintiff to the

granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against plaintiff without a trial. See Ghazali v.

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653

(9th Cir. 1994). 

c. Defendants 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

Case 3:05-cv-00855-MMC Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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

4. All communications by the plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendants,

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

document to defendants or defendants’ counsel.

5. 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 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

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).

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

granted. However, the party making the motion for an extension of time is not relieved from

his or her duty to comply with the deadlines set by the Court merely by having made a motion

for an extension of time. The party making the motion must still meet the deadlines set by the

Court until an order addressing the motion for an extension of time is received. Any motion

for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 3, 2005

_____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00855-MMC Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 Page 5 of 5