Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01370/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01370-3/pdf.json

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

---

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 

DAVID L. COOK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-01370-PJH 

ORDER OF SERVICE 

Re: Dkt. No. 25 

Plaintiff, a detainee, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has 

filed a second amended complaint. 

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) 

Case 4:19-cv-01370-PJH Document 26 Filed 05/12/20 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

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

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 alleges that he was improperly arrested and detained on multiple 

occasions. 

A claim of unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 for violation of the Fourth 

Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure if the complaint 

alleges that the arrest was without probable cause or other justification. See Pierson v. 

Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 555-558 (1967); Yousefian v. City of Glendale, 779 F.3d 1010, 1014 

n.1. (9th Cir. 2015) (absence of probable cause is essential element of § 1983 false 

arrest claim). And a claim of unlawful detention/imprisonment is cognizable under § 1983 

for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process if the arrest was 

without probable cause or other justification and the defendant knew or should have 

known that plaintiff was entitled to release. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 142-

Case 4:19-cv-01370-PJH Document 26 Filed 05/12/20 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

145 (1979); Lee v. County of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 684-85 (9th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff 

stated due process claim where police allegedly arrested plaintiff’s son without probable 

cause, detained him without verifying that he was the person for whom police had an 

arrest warrant, despite his obvious mental incapacity, and detained him for one day 

before extradition hearing, which led to his incarceration in another state for two years). 

But cf. Gant v. County of Los Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 619, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(because plaintiff did not inform defendants of his mistaken identity and because he 

received a prompt hearing, his due process claim based on unlawful post-arrest detention 

failed). 

Plaintiff states that he was improperly arrested and taken to jail on multiple 

occasions, and he was not on probation as alleged by the police officers. It appears that 

he was released from custody after a few days for each incident. Plaintiff is currently in 

jail though he does not indicate that he is in custody related to the arrests that are the 

subject of this action. Liberally construed this is sufficient to state a claim against 

defendants Torres, Cox, Downie, Sansen, Ramirez and Hynes. 

The remaining defendants are dismissed with prejudice. The only allegations 

against Chief Tammny is that plaintiff left messages to speak with him and did not receive 

a return call. There are no allegations against Piceno and Beringer. Plaintiff has failed to 

link these defendants to the underlying allegations. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for release to home confinement (Docket No. 25) is DENIED. 

Plaintiff must seek release from custody in his federal criminal case, not this civil rights 

action. It does not appear that his federal criminal case is related to this civil case. 

2. All defendants are dismissed with prejudice except for Torres, Cox, Downie, 

Sansen, Ramirez and Hynes. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States 

Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the amended complaint 

(Docket No. 24) with attachments and copies of this order on the following defendant 

police officers at the Antioch Police Department: Marcos Torres # 5320, John Cox # 

Case 4:19-cv-01370-PJH Document 26 Filed 05/12/20 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

5705, J. Downie # 5557, John Ramirez # 5236 and Martin Hynes # 4164. The United 

States Marshal shall also serve at the Concord Police Department, Officer Ollie Sansen 

#0392. 

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows: 

 a. No later than ninety days from the date of service, 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, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports 

stemming from the events at issue. If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot 

be resolved by summary judgment, they 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. At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendants shall also serve, 

on a separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 

F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 

n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand

and Wyatt notices must be given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to 

dismiss for nonexhaustion is filed, not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement). 

 c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with 

the court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion 

was served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed "NOTICE -- 

WARNING," which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-

954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 

1988). 

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff failed to 

exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), 

plaintiff should take note of the attached page headed "NOTICE -- WARNING 

(EXHAUSTION)," which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 

Case 4:19-cv-01370-PJH Document 26 Filed 05/12/20 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

1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 d. If defendant wishes to file a reply brief, he shall do so no later than 

fifteen days after the opposition is served upon her. 

 e. 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. 

4. 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 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 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 by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed 

“Notice of Change of Address.” He also 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 12, 2020 

 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

 

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 

Case 4:19-cv-01370-PJH Document 26 Filed 05/12/20 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

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) 

 If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking 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, your case will 

be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION) 

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, they are 

seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case. 

You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show 

that you did exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of 

declarations (statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, 

that is, documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and 

why they are authentic, or other sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or 

depositions. If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust and it 

is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

Case 4:19-cv-01370-PJH Document 26 Filed 05/12/20 Page 6 of 6