Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02535/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02535-1/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

27

28

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

N:\Pro - Se & Death Penalty Orders\02535Velasquez_dwlta.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANILO ARTURO VELASQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

U. S. MARSHALS, et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-02535 EJD (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend to identify at

least one John Doe defendant by name. (Docket No. 7.) Plaintiff has filed an amended

complaint. (Docket No. 11.)

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

Case 5:15-cv-02535-EJD Document 12 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 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 1

Plaintiff asserts that due to his injuries, he merits tolling of the statute of limitations. 

(Compl. at 3.) 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

N:\Pro - Se & Death Penalty Orders\02535Velasquez_dwlta.wpd 2

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 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. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges that during his arrest on or about September 14, 20091

, Defendants

maliciously and sadistically assaulted him, causing permanent brain damage. (Am.

Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff claims that he did not resist arrest or provoke the beating. (Id.) 

Plaintiff also claims that “all Defendant law enforcement agents/officers either

participated or conspired to savagely assault Plaintiff and cover-up this beating.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Avila-Quijano is also liable “since he set this beating up.” 

With respect to the alleged beating, Plaintiff states sufficient facts to indicate that

his right against the use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment may have been

violated. See Pierce v. Multnomah County, Oregon, 76 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir. 1996). 

However, the complaint is still problematic because he fails to allege how the named

defendants are individually liable for his injuries. Under the section asking for the full

name of each defendant, Plaintiff has identified the following individuals: SFPD Sgt. N.

Chorley, SFPD Officer Espinoza, SFPD Sgt. Sakurai, SFPD Officer Silver, Daly City

Officer Greg Oglesby, Rony Avila-Quijano (an informant), and 5 Unknown US Marshals. 

(Am. Compl. at 2-3.) Nowhere in the body of his statement of claim does he identify

individual defendant officers by name or describe their actions that resulted in the alleged

injuries or how they were involved in the conspiracy to assault him and cover-up the

Case 5:15-cv-02535-EJD Document 12 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

N:\Pro - Se & Death Penalty Orders\02535Velasquez_dwlta.wpd 3

beating. 

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the

plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the

deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections &

Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1085 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634

(9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A

person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he

does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act

which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff

complains. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. The inquiry into causation must be individualized

and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or

omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation. Id.

Plaintiff is also advised that a defendant cannot be held liable simply based on his

membership in a group; rather, each individual defendant’s participation in unlawful

conduct must be shown. Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292, 294-95 (9th Cir. 1996)

(holding jury instruction permitting jury to find individual liable as member of team,

without any showing of individual wrongdoing, is improper). Either personal

involvement or integral participation of the officers in the alleged constitutional violation

is required before liability may be imposed; liability may not be imposed based solely on

an officer’s presence during the incident. See Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752,

769-70 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that although “integral participant” rule may not be

limited to officers who provide armed backup, officer who waits in front yard and does

not participate in search of residence not an integral participant); Torres v. City of Los

Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2008); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 936

(9th Cir. 2002). 

Lastly, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Avila-Quijano fails to state a § 1983

claim because a private individual does not act under color of state law, an essential

element of a § 1983 action. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Purely

Case 5:15-cv-02535-EJD Document 12 Filed 01/05/16 Page 3 of 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

N:\Pro - Se & Death Penalty Orders\02535Velasquez_dwlta.wpd 4

private conduct, no matter how wrongful, is not covered under § 1983. See Ouzts v.

Maryland Nat’l Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 547, 550 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 949

(1975). Simply put: There is no right to be free from the infliction of constitutional

deprivations by private individuals. See Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835

(9th Cir. 1996). Unless Plaintiff can show that Defendant Avila-Quijano was somehow

acting under color of state law, there can be no § 1983 claim against him. 

Plaintiff shall be granted one final opportunity to file an amended complaint to

correct the deficiencies described above. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to

amend. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file a

second amended complaint using the court’s form complaint. The second amended

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, Case No. C

15-02535 EJD (PR), and the words “SECOND 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. Plaintiff is cautioned that the second amended

complaint will completely supersede the first amended complaint and the original, and

Plaintiff may not make references thereto. Claims not included in the second amended

complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in the amended complaint are

no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992).

Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing a second amended

complaint will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without

further notice to Plaintiff. 

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

order to Plaintiff.

DATED: 1/4/2016 

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge 

Case 5:15-cv-02535-EJD Document 12 Filed 01/05/16 Page 4 of 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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANILO ARTURO VELASQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

U. S. MARSHAL'S, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-02535-EJD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on 1/5/2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office.

Danilo Arturo Velasquez ID: 14341-111

HAZELTON

U.S. PENITENTIARY

Inmate Mail/Parcels

P.O. BOX 2000

BRUCETON MILLS, WV 26525 

Dated: 1/5/2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable EDWARD J. DAVILA

Case 5:15-cv-02535-EJD Document 12 Filed 01/05/16 Page 5 of 5