Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00155/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00155-0/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL WALLACE BROWN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KEVIN HASS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0155-JAM-EFB P 

SCREENING ORDER AND ORDER 

GRANTING IFP 

Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, he has filed an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

II. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 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). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

Case 2:15-cv-00155-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/19/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

III. Screening Order 

For the limited purposes of § 1915A screening and liberally construed, the complaint 

states a cognizable Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against defendants Hass and Ratto. 

However, the complaint fails to state a claim against defendant City of Chico/Chico Police 

Department. 

Case 2:15-cv-00155-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 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 

3

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. West v. Atkins, 

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 

facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 

See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 

(9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable 

for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 

(2009). In sum, plaintiff must identify the particular person or persons who violated his rights. 

He must also plead facts showing how that particular person was involved in the alleged 

violation. 

A municipal entity or its departments is liable under section 1983 only if plaintiff shows 

that his constitutional injury was caused by employees acting pursuant to the municipality’s 

policy or custom. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977); 

Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic 

Festival Ass'n, 541 F.3d 950, 964 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, plaintiff fails to state a claim against 

defendant City of Chico/Chico Police Department because he has not sufficiently alleged that he 

was injured as a result of employees acting pursuant to any policy or custom of the City of 

Chico/Chico Police Department. In fact, plaintiff makes no allegations at all against this 

defendant. Local government entities may not be held vicariously liable under section 1983 for 

the unconstitutional acts of its employees under a theory of respondeat superior. See Board of 

Cty. Comm’rs. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). 

 Thus, plaintiff may either proceed only on the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim 

against defendants Hass and Ratto, or he may amend his complaint to attempt to cure the 

deficiencies in his claims against the other named defendants. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend 

his complaint. 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00155-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 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 

4

Any amended complaint must cure the deficiencies identified above and also adhere to the 

following requirements: 

Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 

participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 

legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 

It must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. George 

v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See Local Rule 110. 

IV. Summary of Order 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 

in accordance with the notice to the Butte County Sheriff’s Office filed 

concurrently herewith. 

3. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state a cognizable Fourth 

Amendment excessive force claim against defendant s Hass and Ratto. The 

Case 2:15-cv-00155-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/19/16 Page 4 of 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 

5

remaining claims and defendants are dismissed with leave to amend within 30 

days of service of this order. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his complaint. 

4. With this order the Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a 

copy of the January 20, 2015 complaint (ECF No. 1), two USM-285 forms and 

instructions for service of process on defendants Hass and Ratto. Within 30 days 

of service of this order plaintiff may return the attached Notice of Submission of 

Documents with the completed summons, the completed USM-285 form, and 

three copies of the endorsed complaint. The court will transmit them to the United 

States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Defendants Hass and Ratto will be required to respond to 

plaintiff’s allegations within the deadlines stated in Rule 12(a)(1) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

5. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action 

be dismissed. 

DATED: May 19, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00155-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/19/16 Page 5 of 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 

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL WALLACE BROWN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KEVIN HASS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0155-JAM-EFB P 

 

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS 

 

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s 

Screening Order: 

 1 completed summons form 

 2 completed forms USM-285 

 3 copies of the endorsed January 20, 2015 complaint 

Dated: 

 ____________________________ 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-00155-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/19/16 Page 6 of 6