Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01141/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01141-5/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRANDON EUGENE HUNTER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BRENNEMAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-1141 KJM CKD P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a California pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On October 12, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections to the findings and 

recommendations have been filed. 

The court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 

207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See 

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 

magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 

Case 2:22-cv-01141-DC-CKD Document 19 Filed 12/15/22 Page 1 of 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 

2 

. . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

However, the findings and recommendations do not fully address plaintiff’s Monell 

claims. In the operative complaint, plaintiff names Sacramento County, the Sacramento County 

Sheriff’s Office, and the City of Sacramento as defendants, in addition to the individual officers. 

See Am. Compl. at 4, ECF No. 11.1 Plaintiff alleges Sacramento County and the City are liable 

because of a history of similar misconduct of pretrial detainees, and the Sheriff’s Office is liable 

for not properly training the officers. Id. at 8. To establish a municipality’s liability under § 1983 

and Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), the plaintiff must show a 

“policy or custom” caused a constitutional deprivation. Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 

833 F.3d 1060, 1073 (9th Cir.) (en banc). Several theories for a policy or custom can support a 

Monell claim, including showing a history of similar misconduct and a failure to train. In most 

cases, a “pattern of similar constitutional violations” is necessary for a failure-to-train claim. 

Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 61 (2011). 

As the findings and recommendations explain, plaintiff must allege facts regarding, for 

example, the County and City’s history of similar misconduct or the Sheriff’s Office’s failure to 

train its officers. Without more than a conclusory statement of prior misconduct or a failure to 

train, plaintiff’s claims cannot proceed. On these three claims, plaintiff is granted leave to 

amend. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 12, 2022 are adopted in full, except

with regard to Monell claims against the County or City, which are dismissed with leave to 

amend; 

2. All claims other than a claim arising under the Fourteenth Amendment against

defendants Long, Moore, Gonsalvo, Pashetov and Brenneman for excessive use of force are 

dismissed; and 

1

 The pages cited in ECF No. 11 are those applied by the CM/ECF system. 

Case 2:22-cv-01141-DC-CKD Document 19 Filed 12/15/22 Page 2 of 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 

3 

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial

proceedings. 

DATED: December 14, 2022. 

Case 2:22-cv-01141-DC-CKD Document 19 Filed 12/15/22 Page 3 of 3