Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00979/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00979-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENNY C. JOHNSTON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COOLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00979-MJS

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF NO. 10)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Benny C. Johnston, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 23, 2014. 

(ECF No. 1.) He has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.)

On July 29, 2014, Plaintiff‟s Complaint was screened and dismissed, with leave to 

amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff‟s First Amended 

Complaint (ECF No. 10) is now before the Court for screening.

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has 

raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or that fail to state a claim upon which 

Case 1:14-cv-00979-MJS Document 12 Filed 10/31/14 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

relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion 

thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

The First Amended Complaint identifies the following officers of the Bakersfield 

Police Department as Defendants: (1) Chad Haskins; (2) Cooley; (3) Whisenhunt; (4) 

James Dickson; and (5) Peck.

Plaintiff alleges the following:

Shortly after midnight on October, 9, 2012, Plaintiff was high on 

methamphetamine while driving a vehicle he had stolen the night before. Plaintiff 

refused to pull over for Defendants Haskins and Cooley and continued driving at a high 

rate of speed. Plaintiff entered an apartment complex and drove in circles trying to avoid 

capture. Plaintiff then exited the car, ran through the complex, entered an apartment, 

and passed through multiple apartments before “climb[ing] into an attic space shared by 

several apartments.” (Compl. at 3.)

Defendants Haskin and Cooley warned Plaintiff that a K-9 was standing by if he 

did not come down peacefully. Defendant Whisenhunt arrived and tried to negotiate with 

Plaintiff for approximately an hour. Plaintiff was smoking methamphetamine during this 

time. The negotiations ended and Defendant Haskins deployed the K-9. Plaintiff then 

dropped down into an apartment and the K-9 followed.

Plaintiff was bitten and blacked out. Defendant Whisenhunt, coming to assist the 

K-9, shoved Plaintiff, who was partially unconscious, down and placed his right knee on 

Plaintiff‟s head. (Id.) Defendant Dickson hit Plaintiff on the ankle four times after 

allegedly witnessing Plaintiff, who was now completely unconscious, strike Defendant 

Whisenhunt. (Id. at 3 and 4.) Defendant Peck then grabbed Plaintiff‟s right wrist and 

used an arm bar to disable a still unconscious Plaintiff. (Id. at 4.)

Case 1:14-cv-00979-MJS Document 12 Filed 10/31/14 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

Plaintiff was transported to a hospital where he was treated for more than a dozen 

injuries, including puncture wounds, scratches, swelling, red marks, a dislocated right 

arm, and a broken ankle that required surgery to repair. The injuries to Plaintiff‟s arm 

and ankle resulted in permanent diminished range of motion. (Id. at 3 and 4.)

Plaintiff asserts each of the Defendants used unreasonable force under the 

circumstances in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. (Id. at 4 and 5.)

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Section 1983

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the „deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws‟ of the United States.” 

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass‟n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for 

vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 

(1989).

To state a claim under Section 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); Ketchum v. Alameda 

Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations 

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 

1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a claim that is 

plausible on its face.‟” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility 

that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as 

true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949-50.

Case 1:14-cv-00979-MJS Document 12 Filed 10/31/14 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

B. Excessive Force

A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during the course of 

an arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and an objective reasonableness

standard. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989); Davis v. City of Las Vegas, 478 

F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2007). Under this standard, “„[t]he force which [i]s applied 

must be balanced against the need for that force: it is the need for force which is at the 

heart of the Graham factors.‟” Liston v. County of Riverside, 120 F.3d 965, 976 (9th Cir. 

1997) (quoting Alexander v. City and County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1367 (9th 

Cir. 1994). The Graham factors are a non-exhaustive list of considerations used to 

measure the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation: “[1] the severity 

of the crime at issue, [2] whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of 

the officers or others, and [3] whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to 

evade arrest by flight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396.

The right to make an arrest or investigatory stop carries with it the right to use 

some degree of physical coercion or threat. Id. However, the force applied must be 

necessary to be reasonable. Where police have control over a suspect, the use of 

further force to bring the suspect under control may be unreasonable. See LaLonde v. 

County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 961 (9th Cir. 2000) (use of force upon a person after 

surrender constitutes excessive force).

The amended complaint acknowledges behavior that amount to serious crimes. 

Plaintiff was driving intoxicated, refused to obey police commands to pull over, and tried 

to evade capture while driving at high speeds and through an apartment complex. 

Plaintiff also fled on foot through residences and eventually hid in a confined space 

where he smoked methamphetamine and refused to surrender. Under the 

circumstances Plaintiff posed an immediate threat to the safety of the Defendants and 

any residents present.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff maintains that each of the Defendants used unreasonable 

force in the process of detaining him in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The 

Case 1:14-cv-00979-MJS Document 12 Filed 10/31/14 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

excessive force claim is entirely based on the Defendants‟ conduct after Plaintiff fell 

down from the attic. However, Plaintiff admits that once he fell down from the attic and 

was bitten by the K-9 he “blacked out and did not regain consciousness until arrival of 

medical responders . . . .” (Compl. at 3.) By Plaintiff‟s own admission he cannot know 

that he was compliant with the Defendants‟ attempts to arrest him because he was 

unconscious. The amended complaint does not explain how Plaintiff is aware that 

Defendants‟ used a K-9, a knee to the head, four baton strikes to the ankle, and arm bar 

or how he is aware that such force, if sued,was not necessary given the situation. The 

force at issue was brief and deployed immediately after Plaintiff, who was under the 

influence of methamphetamine and non-compliant, fell from an attic.

The amended complaint does not adequately allege a violation of Plaintiff‟s 

Fourth Amendment rights. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend. To state a 

claim Plaintiff must explain why the Defendants‟ conduct was unreasonable under the 

circumstances. The amended complaint must also explain how Plaintiff could know the 

reasonableness of the Defendants‟ actions if he was unconscious and intoxicated at the 

time.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Complaint does not state a claim for relief. The Court 

will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 

1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff opts to amend, he must demonstrate that the 

alleged acts resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 

1948-49. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to „state a claim that is 

plausible on its face.‟” Id. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)). Plaintiff 

must also demonstrate that each named Defendant personally participated in a 

deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it 

is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 

Case 1:14-cv-00979-MJS Document 12 Filed 10/31/14 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

Cir. 2007). Plaintiff should carefully read this Screening Order and focus his efforts on 

curing the deficiencies set forth above.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general 

rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint 

no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 

sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First

Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 

under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 

omitted).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s First Amended Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted;

3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, 

this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and failure to 

comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00979-MJS Document 12 Filed 10/31/14 Page 6 of 6