Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-02437/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-02437-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 

LOTU T. OSOTONU, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMERICAN CANYON POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 17-cv-02437-MEJ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Napa County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis by separate order. His complaint 

is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review 

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

seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an 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. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 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). 

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

“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 

Case 4:17-cv-02437-PJH Document 8 Filed 07/14/17 Page 1 of 5
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

(2007) (citations omitted). “[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. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that on March 3, 2017, American Canyon Police Department Officer 

Linchall used excessive force on him when Officer Linchall approached Plaintiff’s car, falsely 

claimed that Plaintiff smelled of alcohol, and then, violently and without cause, handcuffed 

Plaintiff, fracturing his wrist. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 3. Plaintiff’s allegation that Officer 

Linchall used excessive force in effectuating his arrest states a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

See Rutherford v. City of Berkeley, 780 F.2d 1444, 1445–48 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled on other 

grounds by Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (allegation of use of excessive force by law 

enforcement officer in effectuating an arrest states valid § 1983 claim for violation of substantive 

due process). 

Plaintiff further alleges that Officer Linchall, and American Canyon Police Department 

officers Snyder and Swartz, and Napa Police Department Officer Hunter, have subjected him to 

discrimination, racial profiling, and stereotyping. Compl. at 4. These allegations are insufficient 

to state a § 1983 claim for the following reasons. 

First, it is unclear what constitutional right or federal law was violated. A section 1983 

plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving two essential elements: (1) conduct that 

deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the 

United States; and (2) the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of 

Case 4:17-cv-02437-PJH Document 8 Filed 07/14/17 Page 2 of 5
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

state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Discriminatory practices can violate the 

Equal Protection Clause. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) 

(“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall ‘deny 

to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ which is essentially a 

direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.”) (quoting Plyler v. Doe, 457 

U.S. 202, 216 (1982). “To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted 

with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a 

protected class,” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), such as race, 

Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976) (“The central purpose of the Equal Protection 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the prevention of official conduct discriminating on the 

basis of race.”). 

Second, these allegations fail to meet to pleading requirements set forth in Rule 8 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires that the complaint to contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

While detailed factual allegations are not required, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, “[t]hreadbare 

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not 

suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plaintiff fails to specify what alleged 

unconstitutional and discriminatory acts were committed by Defendants. 

Because it appears possible that Plaintiff may be able to correct the identified deficiencies, 

the Court will grant Plaintiff another opportunity to plead this claim, and DISMISSES this claim 

with leave to amend to correct the identified deficiencies, if Plaintiff can truthfully do so. Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (if court determines pleading could be cured by 

allegation of other facts, pro se litigant entitled to opportunity to amend complaint before 

dismissal of action). If Plaintiff chooses to replead this claim, he must allege sufficient factual 

details relevant to this claim against each Defendant to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. For example, Plaintiff should specify when the 

constitutional violation took place, and how each specific defendant caused the alleged 

Case 4:17-cv-02437-PJH Document 8 Filed 07/14/17 Page 3 of 5
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

constitutional violation. 

Finally, Plaintiff has also listed the American Canyon Police Department (“ACPD”) as a 

defendant. Compl. at 2. It is unclear whether this is a typographical error as Plaintiff has made no 

allegations regarding actions taken or not taken by the ACPD. The ACPD is DISMISSED from 

this action with leave to amend. If Plaintiff intends to sue the ACPD, he must specify how the 

ACPD violated his rights under the federal Constitution or federal law. The ACPD cannot be held 

liable under § 1983 simply on the theory it is responsible for the actions or omissions of its 

employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). To impose municipal 

liability under § 1983 for a violation of constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the 

plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which he or she was deprived; (2) that the municipality 

had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional 

rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the constitutional violation. See Plumeau 

v. School Dist. # 40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to amend to 

address the deficiencies identified above. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, 

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and 

civil case number used in this order, Case No. C 17-02437 MEJ (PR) and the words “AMENDED 

COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the 

questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. Because an amended complaint 

completely replaces the previous complaints, Plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all 

the claims he wishes to present, including the excessive force claim which the Court has found 

cognizable, and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by 

reference. 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order in the time provided 

will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s form complaint with a copy of this order 

Case 4:17-cv-02437-PJH Document 8 Filed 07/14/17 Page 4 of 5
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

to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

______________________________________ 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES 

United States Magistrate Judge 

July 14, 2017

Case 4:17-cv-02437-PJH Document 8 Filed 07/14/17 Page 5 of 5