Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00066/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00066-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

WILLIE M. FLANIGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00066-LB 

ORDER OF SERVICE

[Re: ECF No. 6 ]

INTRODUCTION

Willie Flannigan, an inmate at the San Mateo County Jail, filed this pro se prisoner's civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. (ECF 

No. 1 at 4.)1The court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend to cure several 

deficiencies. Mr. Flannigan then filed an amended complaint, which is now before the court for 

review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This order finds that the amended complaint states cognizable 

claims upon which relief may be granted and orders service of process on several defendants. 

 

1 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of the documents.

Case 3:16-cv-00066-WHA Document 7 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 8
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 California

STATEMENT

The amended complaint (ECF No. 6) alleges the following: 

On October 31, 2014, Mr. Flannigan was stopped by San Francisco police officers based on a 

falsified hit-and-run report by San Francisco police sergeant Holder, who falsely broadcast that

Mr. Flannigan had hit him with a vehicle. San Francisco police officers attacked and beat Mr. 

Flannigan once they caught him. Sergeant Tam pointed his gun at Mr. Flannigan, then slammed 

his knee down on the back of Mr. Flannigan‟s head and held him down. (Id. at 6, 8, 9.) Sergeant 

Ryan kicked Mr. Flannigan in the face, officer Harris hit him several times, and officer Hicklin 

choked him with a billy club. (Id. at 8, 9.)

“San Francisco Police seized $2,600 cash” from Mr. Flannigan without producing a receipt or 

booking the money into evidence. (Id. at 1.)

Officer Villaruel made a statement that contains lies about Mr. Flannigan‟s “attempts to resist 

and flee.” (Id. at 9.) Joyce Hicks of the San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints “had it within 

her power to do something about [Mr. Flannigan] being assaulted but she chose to blatantly do as 

little as possible because she obviously did not want to hold these police officers accountable or 

admit there is a problem with police misconduct in the City of San Francisco.” (Id.) Gregory 

Underwood had a “blatant disrespect in the way that he interviewed [Mr. Flannigan] making it 

clear that he would be supporting the police before he would support [Mr. Flannigan].” (Id. at 10.)

When Mr. Flannigan complained to the Office of Citizen Complaints and the Justice Department, 

“they played down the fact that [Mr. Flannigan] was racially profiled and disrespected.” (Id. at 4.)

With regard to the municipal defendants, the amended complaint alleges: The San Francisco 

Police Department “thinks that they are above the law.” (Id. at 6 (error in source).) The harm 

inflicted on Mr. Flannigan “shows that the City and County of San Francisco encourages cops to 

kill as long as they have a good story to cover their tracks.” (Id. at 7.) 

ANALYSIS

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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 

Case 3:16-cv-00066-WHA Document 7 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 8
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 California

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 id. at § 1915A(b). Pro se

complaints must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 

(1988). 

Traffic stops, investigative stops, and arrests are covered by the Fourth Amendment‟s 

protection “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend IV. “An officer may 

conduct a traffic stop if the officer has „probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has 

occurred.‟” United States v. Fowlkes, 804 F.3d 954, 971 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Whren v. United 

States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996)). “To justify an investigative stop, a police officer must have 

reasonable suspicion that a suspect is involved in criminal activity.” United States v. Colin, 314 

F.3d 439, 442 (9th Cir. 2002). An arrest must be supported by probable cause. An arrest is 

supported by probable cause if, under the totality of the circumstances known to the arresting 

officer, a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that the defendant 

had committed a crime. Luchtel v. Hagemann, 623 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2010).

A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force in the course of an arrest or other 

seizure is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard. See Graham v. Connor, 

490 U.S. 386, 394-95 (1989); Forrester v. City of San Diego, 25 F.3d 804, 806 (9th Cir. 1994). 

“Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is „reasonable‟ under the Fourth 

Amendment requires a careful balancing of „“the nature and quality of the intrusion on the 

individual‟s Fourth Amendment interests‟” against the countervailing governmental interests at 

stake.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 (citations omitted).

Giving it the liberal construction to which it is entitled, the pro se amended complaint states 

cognizable § 1983 claims against sergeant Holder, sergeant Tam, sergeant Ryan, officer Harris, 

and officer Hicklin for Fourth Amendment violations based on an unlawful seizure and the use of 

excessive force in the course of that seizure.

Case 3:16-cv-00066-WHA Document 7 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 8
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 California

The amended complaint fails to state a claim against the other defendants. Ms. Hicks has no 

liability under § 1983 merely based on her failure to find in Mr. Flannigan‟s favor on his 

complaint about police misconduct, and Mr. Underwood has no liability under § 1983 merely for 

being a disbelieving interviewer on that complaint about police misconduct. The constitution does 

not provide a right to have governmental actors agree with, or be courteous to, a person filing a 

citizen‟s complaint. Mr. Flannigan‟s allegation that the defendants failed to recognize that there 

was racial profiling does not state a claim for an equal protection claim because he did not allege 

any facts supporting his conclusion that it was his race that prompted any defendant‟s acts, as the 

court informed him he had to do to state a claim for an equal protection violatoin. (ECF No. 4 at 

3.)

The amended complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim for relief against any defendant for the 

alleged seizure of his money by the police. The court earlier had explained that liability could be 

imposed on individual defendants only if the plaintiff could show that an individual defendant 

proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. (Se ECF No. 4 at 4.) Mr. 

Flannigan‟s generalized allegation that the “police” seized his money is insufficient to state a 

claim against any particular officer.

The amended complaint also fails to state a claim against the San Francisco Police Department 

and the City and County of San Francisco. There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, 

i.e. no liability under the theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions of another, 

such as an employee. See Board of Cty. Comm'rs. of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 

(1997). And Mr. Flannigan has not alleged a cognizable Monell claim against a municipal 

defendant in his amended complaint. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 

(1978); Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997).

CONCLUSION

1. Liberally construed, the amended complaint states a cognizable § 1983 claim against 

defendants Holder, Tam, Harris, Hicklin, and Ryan for violating Mr. Flannigan‟s Fourth 

Amendment rights. All other defendants and claims are dismissed. Further leave to amend is not 

granted as to the dismissed defendants and claims because the court explained what Mr. Flannigan 

Case 3:16-cv-00066-WHA Document 7 Filed 04/27/16 Page 4 of 8
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

needed to do to allege the claims against the defendants in the order of dismissal with leave to 

amend and Mr. Flannigan was unable or unwilling to cure those deficiencies in his amended 

complaint.

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint and amended complaint, a copy of all 

the documents in the case file, and a copy of the “consent or declination to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction” form upon the following defendants, all of whom apparently work at the San 

Francisco Police Department:

- sergeant Holder (badge # 1873)

- sergeant Tam (badge # 138)

- officer Harris (badge # 1065)

- officer Hicklin (badge # 1151) 

- sergeant Ryan (badge # 1756)

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for 

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than July 22, 2016, the defendants must file and serve a motion for 

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If the defendants are of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, the defendants must so inform the Court prior to the 

date the motion is due. If the defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the defendants must 

provide to the plaintiff a new Rand notice regarding summary judgment procedures at the time 

they file such a motion. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012). If the motion is 

based on nonexhaustion of administrative remedies, the defendants must comply with the notice 

and procedural requirements in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014).

b. The plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion 

must be filed with the court and served upon the defendant no later than August 19, 2016. The 

plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment provided later in 

this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 

c. If the defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and served 

no later than September 2, 2016.

4. The plaintiff is provided the following notices and warnings about the procedures for 

Case 3:16-cv-00066-WHA Document 7 Filed 04/27/16 Page 5 of 8
6

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

motions for summary judgment:

The defendants [may make] a motion for summary judgment by 

which they seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary 

judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

will, if granted, end your case. [¶] Rule 56 tells you what you must 

do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, 

summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue 

of material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact 

that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for 

summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which 

will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for 

summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or 

other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your 

complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in 

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or

authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict 

the facts shown in the defendants' declarations and documents and 

show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do 

not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if 

appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is 

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). If a defendant files a motion for summary 

judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, he or she is seeking to have the case 

dismissed. A plaintiff faced with such a motion can oppose it using the same methods as described 

above for other summary judgment motions. As with other defense summary judgment motions, if 

a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is granted, the case 

will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

5. All communications by the plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's counsel

by mailing a true copy of the document to the defendant's counsel. The court may disregard any 

document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant's 

counsel has been designated, the plaintiff may serve a document by mailing a true copy of the 

document directly to the defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents 

must be mailed to counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

6. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No 

further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required 

before the parties may conduct discovery.

7. The plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. The plaintiff must promptly keep the

Case 3:16-cv-00066-WHA Document 7 Filed 04/27/16 Page 6 of 8
7

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

court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely 

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in 

every pending case every time he is moved to a new facility or is released from custody.

8. The plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this case 

on any document he submits to the court for consideration in this case.

9. The plaintiff failed to sign his amended complaint. The clerk will mail to plaintiff a copy 

of the amended complaint (i.e., ECF No. 6) but not the exhibits thereto. The plaintiff must sign 

that copy of his amended complaint and return it to the court no later than May 15, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2016

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00066-WHA Document 7 Filed 04/27/16 Page 7 of 8
8

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

WILLIE M. FLANIGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-00066-LB 

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 April 27, 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.

Willie M. Flanigan ID: #1077777

300 Bradford Street

Redwood City, CA 94063 

Dated: April 27, 2016 Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable LAUREL BEELER

Case 3:16-cv-00066-WHA Document 7 Filed 04/27/16 Page 8 of 8