Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01361/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01361-1/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Eric D. Perry,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 03-1361 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

County of Solano, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a

civil rights action against deputy sheriff Stacks and Solano

County. Plaintiff alleges that while he was handcuffed and

shackled and being escorting from a courtroom, Stacks slammed him

against a wall and then hurled him head-first into an elevator,

causing him to hit his head. Plaintiff claims his injuries were

a knot on the head, whiplash of the neck and back and a cut on

the elbow.

The court approved service of defendant Stacks and he

Case 2:03-cv-01361-FCD-EFB Document 87 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 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

2

answered December 19, 2003. The court neither dismissed the

County of Solano nor approved service upon it as a defendant. 

October 8, 2004, plaintiff moved for discovery of Stacks’

personnel records, stating on information and belief Stacks was

involved in prior incidents of excessive force and seeking

disclosure of records reflecting those incidents. Plaintiff’s

motion, treated as a motion to compel, is denied because

plaintiff has not provided the court with the discovery requests

made by plaintiff nor Stacks’ responses thereto. 

November 16, 2004, plaintiff moved for leave to amend the

complaint to add Solano County as a defendant. Plaintiff states

an investigator told him approximately 30 inmates have charged

Stacks with use of excessive force. 

A local public entity or municipality cannot be liable under

section 1983 based on respondeat superior. Collins v. City of

Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 122 (1992). Rather, the plaintiff

must show there is an official policy, custom, or practice of the

public entity of deliberate indifference to the rights of

individuals, and as a result thereof, the plaintiff suffered a

deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Department of Social

Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). A

“policy” is “a deliberate choice to follow a course of action . .

. made from among various alternatives by the official or

officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect

to the subject matter in question.” Oviatt by and through Waugh

v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Pembaur

Case 2:03-cv-01361-FCD-EFB Document 87 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 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

3

v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483-84 (1986)). An official

policy, custom, or practice evidences “deliberate indifference”

to constitutional rights when the need for more or different

action is “so obvious, and the inadequacy of the current

procedure is so likely to result in the violation of

constitutional rights, that the policy makers . . . can be

reasonably said to have been deliberately indifferent to the

need.” Id. at 1477-78 (quoting City of Canton, 489 U.S. 378, 390

(1989)).

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is denied because

plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint stating all

claims against all defendants. Plaintiff may move again for

leave to amend, correcting this error. It would appear any

further brief delay in seeking leave to amend may be excusable

based on the court’s previous inaction with respect to defendant

County of Solano.

February 1, 2005, plaintiff moved in limine to exclude

evidence regarding his criminal history. The motion is premature

because the case is not, presently, set for trial. The court

will issue a new scheduling order after the question of amended

pleading is resolved.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 8, 2004, motion for discovery of

Stacks’ personnel records, construed as a motion to compel, is

denied.

2. Plaintiff’s November 16, 2004, motion for leave to file

Case 2:03-cv-01361-FCD-EFB Document 87 Filed 06/01/05 Page 3 of 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

4

an amended complaint is denied without prejudice. If plaintiff

intends to pursue claims against Solano County he shall file a

motion for leave to amend and proposed amended complaint within

20 days; otherwise the court will recommend claims against County

of Solano be dismissed. 

3. Plaintiff’s February 1, 2005, motion in limine is denied

without prejudice.

Dated: May 31, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01361-FCD-EFB Document 87 Filed 06/01/05 Page 4 of 4