Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00778/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00778-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN JAY DENNISON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Lieutenant LANE, Sergeant STEVE

BURESS, and Officers TOM LEIPELT,

SCHNIEDER, C. MUNOZ, and MIKE

HORN, of the Santa Clara Police

Department ; Officers ROGERS,

VALENCIA, and HERNANDEZ, and

Sergeant HERNANDEZ, of the Santa

Clara Sheriff’s Department; Lieutenant M.

CONNER, of the Santa Clara Department

of Corrections; CITY OF SANTA CLARA

POLICE DEPARTMENT; SANTA CLARA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; and

EDWARD C. FLORES, Chief, Santa Clara

Department of Corrections,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-0778 PJH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT LEAVE TO

AMEND AND OTHER

RULINGS

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a former inmate of the Santa Clara County

Jail. He also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

DISCUSSION

I. Motion for Leave to Amend

Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend. As no responsive pleading has been filed or is

due, the amendment is an amendment as of right. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(a). The motion

for leave will be denied as unnecessary.

In the amended complaint plaintiff has omitted as defendants Rogers, Valencia,

Officer Hernandez, Sergeant Hernandez, and Conner. They will be dismissed from the

Case 4:07-cv-00778-PJH Document 11 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 8
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

case. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992) (defendants not named

in an amended complaint are no longer defendants). He has added as defendants the

Santa Clara Police Department and Edward C. Flores, who is identified as chief of the

Santa Clara Department of Corrections. It is the amended complaint which is reviewed

below.

II. 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).

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

elements: (1) that a violation of 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).

III. Legal Claims 

A. Claim One

California grants arrestees (persons detained in custody post-arrest, but prearraignment) the right to place three telephone calls. See Cal Penal Code § 851.5. This

state-created right is one of "real substance" entitled to constitutional due process

protections. Carlo v. City of Chino, 105 F.3d 493, 500 (9th Cir. 1997). An arrestee

therefore must receive notice of the right to telephone calls and may be denied a requested

immediate telephone call only in the case of physical impossibility. Id. at 497. Plaintiff

alleges that defendants Schneider, C. Munoz, Horn, Lane and Buress did not allow him to

make a telephone call from jail after his arrest. This claim is sufficient to proceed as to the

individual defendants.

Case 4:07-cv-00778-PJH Document 11 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 8
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

3

Plaintiff also names the Santa Clara Police Department as a defendant on this claim. 

He contends that the department “failed to enforce training as to [the individual officers].” It

may be that the Santa Clara Police Department is a suable entity, see Shaw v. Cal. Dep't

of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 788 F.2d 600, 604-05 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1986) (police

department of a city and the sheriffs department of a county are public entities under

California law and therefore may be sued in federal court), but as with claims against

municipalities, plaintiff must allege that the violation of his rights was pursuant to a custom

or policy of the department, or allege facts from which such a custom or policy can be

inferred, id. at 610-11. Plaintiff has not done that here, so this claim will be dismissed with

leave to amend as to the Santa Clara Police Department. 

B. Claim Two

Plaintiff contends that defendant Santa Clara Police Department violated his rights

by not having security cameras in the city jail. It may be that a practice or policy not to

have such cameras can be inferred from the allegation, a point the court does not

conclusively resolve here, but plaintiff does not allege that the lack of such cameras caused

him any injury or otherwise explain how not having them violated his rights. This claim will

be dismissed with leave to amend. 

C. Claim Three

Plaintiff contends that defendants Buress, Horn and C. Munoz assaulted him in the

jail without cause and while he was in restraints, among other injuries breaking his right

foot. This claim is sufficient to proceed.

D. Claim Four

Plaintiff contends that despite his entreaties, defendants Buress, Horn, Munox and

Leipelt refused to take him to a hospital for care of his severe injuries incurred in the

beating. This is sufficient to require a response.

Plaintiff also contends on this claim that defendant Santa Clara Police Department

failed to enforce its procedures and policies regarding medical treatment. A state or local

government’s failure to enforce its own procedures or regulations is not grounds for a

Case 4:07-cv-00778-PJH Document 11 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 8
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

federal claim. Only violations of federal law, not an agency’s own procedures and policies,

give rise to a cognizable section 1983 claim. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 697 (1976)

(to state section 1983 claim plaintiff must show specific constitutional or federal guarantee

safeguarding the interests that have been invaded). And because plaintiff has alleged that

the officers were acting contrary to the department’s policies and procedures, rather than

pursuant to them as he would have to allege to state a claim against the department,

amendment as to this claim would be futile. This claim as to the department will be

dismissed without leave to amend. 

E. Claim Five

Plaintiff contends that the “Santa Clara County Department of Corrections Main Jail

Correctional Officer(s) and Medical Staff on Duty” violated his constitutional rights by

accepting him from the police department even though he was injured and had not been

“cleared” by a hospital or physician, something he contends is a violation of “procedure.” 

As discussed above, violation of an agency procedure is not grounds for a section 1983

claim, and there is no constitutional right not to be booked into a jail without being “cleared”

by a doctor or hospital. This claim will be dismissed without leave to amend. 

Plaintiff also contends that “Medical Staff” failed to treat him for his extensive

injuries. The “Medical Staff” is not a suable entity, plaintiff does not say who failed to treat

him, and he does not allege that the failure to treat him was pursuant to a policy or

procedure of the Santa Clara Department of Corrections so as to state a claim against that

agency. This claim will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff also contends that Edward C. Flores, Chief of the Santa Clara Department

of Corrections, is a defendant on this claim. This appears to be a respondeat superior

claim, that is, a contention that Flores is liable simply because he is the superior of the

persons who may have actually violated plaintiff’s rights. Such claims are not permissible

under section 1983. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Monell

v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (local governments cannot be liable

under § 1983 under respondeat superior theory). A supervisor therefore generally "is only

Case 4:07-cv-00778-PJH Document 11 Filed 07/30/07 Page 4 of 8
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

liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or

directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them." Taylor,

880 F.2d at 1045. For these reasons, the claim against Flores will be dismissed with leave

to amend. 

F. Claim Six

Plaintiff complains that prisoners can use the law library only if they are pro se or pro

per and either have a court order “stating” that status or “send [the] complaint [the prisoner]

is currently working on to classification management so that department may determine

[the prisoner’s] eligibility to access the facility law library.” 

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518

U.S. 343, 350 (1996. To establish a claim for any violation of the right of access to the

courts, the prisoner must prove that there was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access

program that caused him an actual injury. Id. at 350-55. To prove an actual injury, the

prisoner must show that the inadequacy in the prison's program hindered his efforts to

pursue a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. Id. at

354-55. Although the prison officials must ensure that prisoners "have a reasonably

adequate opportunity to file nonfrivolous legal claims challenging their convictions or

conditions of confinement," the officials are free to devise their own methods to reach that

result. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 356. 

Just an offer of court-appointed counsel satisfies the government's obligation to

provide meaningful access to the courts to a criminal defendant. United States v. Wilson,

690 F.2d 1267, 1272 (9th Cir. 1982). Thus plaintiff’s claim that use of the law library is

limited to prisoners who do not have a lawyer is not cognizable, because prisoners who

have a lawyer have adequate access to the courts. 

It is possible, however, that the requirement that a prisoner who cannot show a court

determination that he is pro se must send the complaint he is working on to “classification

management” so “that department may determine [the prisoner’s] eligibility to access the

facility law library” might be a violation of plaintiff’s right of access to the courts if (1) plaintiff

Case 4:07-cv-00778-PJH Document 11 Filed 07/30/07 Page 5 of 8
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

6

himself was forced to do so; (2) as a result he was denied use of the law library; and (3) he

suffered an “actual injury” as defined above. He alleges none of these things, so the claim

must be dismissed with leave to amend.

In addition, this claim appears to be against “Santa Clara Department of Corrections

Facilitie(s).” There is no obvious sense in which the various facilities as a group could

constitute a suable entity. As noted above, it is possible that the Santa Clara Department

of Corrections is a “public entity” and can be sued, and the County of Santa Clara certainly

is, but these are not the named defendants. Plaintiff must remedy this deficiency if he

chooses to amend.

III. Motion

In his motion for pro se status (called a “Motion to Intervene” on the docket) plaintiff

asks the court to “list [him] as a Pro Se litigant.” He does not explain what he means by

this; he is shown on this court’s docket as being pro se, if that is what he means. This

motion will be denied because plaintiff does not explain what relief is wanted.

In a separate motion filed with the motion addressed above plaintiff asks the court to

view his filings “with a very generous and liberal eye.” The amended complaint has been

liberally construed, as required by Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1990). The motion will be denied as moot.

CONCLUSION

1. In view of his release from jail, plaintiff is no longer a “prisoner” as defined in

28 U.S.C. § 1915(h). Furthermore, it would be futile to order the jail to withhold fees from

income to his prisoner account, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), when he is no

longer there. Instead, within thirty days of the date of this order plaintiff shall file an

updated affidavit in support of his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The

court will then consider whether leave to proceed IFP should be granted and whether a

partial filing fee will be imposed. The clerk shall send plaintiff the court’s form for

applications to proceed IFP by a nonprisoner. 

///

Case 4:07-cv-00778-PJH Document 11 Filed 07/30/07 Page 6 of 8
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

7

2. Plaintiff’s motions for pro se status and for the court to construe the complaint

liberally (both part of document five on the docket) are DENIED. His motion for leave to

amend (document eight) is DENIED as unnecessary. The amendment is an amendment

as of right. His “motion” (document number 10) is DENIED because it is not a motion, but

rather a notification that despite his release to a rehabilitation program, plaintiff’s situation

has not changed with regard to access to legal materials. Plaintiff should not label filings

as motions if they are not requests for a court order.

3. As a consequence of their omission from the amended complaint, defendants

Rogers, Valencia, Officer Hernandez, Sergeant Hernandez, and Conner are DISMISSED. 

4. Plaintiff’s claim one may proceed as to the individual defendants. It is

DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Santa Clara Police Department. 

5. Claim two is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

6. Claim three is sufficient to proceed. 

7. In claim four, plaintiff’s claims against the individual defendants are sufficient

to proceed. His claim against the Santa Clara Police Department is DISMISSED

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

8. In claim five, plaintiff’s contention that his rights were violated by his being

checked into the main jail without being medically cleared is DISMISSED WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND. His claim that he was not given adequate medical care and his claim

against defendant Flores are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

9. Plaintiff’s claim six is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

10. If plaintiff desires to amend he shall do so within thirty days of the date this

order is entered. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number

used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. An amended

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

claims he wishes to present, including those which are identified here as sufficient to

proceed. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. He may not incorporate material from the original

complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the final

Case 4:07-cv-00778-PJH Document 11 Filed 07/30/07 Page 7 of 8
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

8

dismissal of the claims which are dismissed with leave to amend in this order. 

11. Service of the claims which are identified above as sufficient to proceed will

be withheld to allow all claims to proceed together. 

12. 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2007 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\DENNISON778.DWLTA.wpd 

Case 4:07-cv-00778-PJH Document 11 Filed 07/30/07 Page 8 of 8