Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01156/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01156-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

CHARLES KETTLE, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF MODESTO, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:06cv1156 AWI DLB P

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY

COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED

ONLY ON FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIM

AGAINST DEFENDANT BANKS, WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 21, 2006. He names the City of

Modesto, Modesto Police Department and Detective Banks as Defendants. 

DISCUSSION

A. Screening Standard

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 or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to

Case 1:06-cv-01156-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 10/26/07 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

2

state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint

can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff’s amended complaint seeks damages for an allegedly unconstitutional search and

seizure. According to the amended complaint, on October 25, 2004, Plaintiff was arrested and

charged with misuse of personal identifying information and possession of a forged driver’s

license. Plaintiff alleges that on November 2, 2004, defendant Banks went to his friend’s

business and without a warrant, seized plaintiff’s property in the amount of $80,000.00 in

addition to funds in the amount of $15,600.00. 

Plaintiff contends that on January 5, 2005, Judge Marie Silveira issued an order requiring

the return of all property seized by defendant but defendants have refused to release plaintiff’s

property. 

C. Section 1983 Claims

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Case 1:06-cv-01156-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 10/26/07 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

3

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights.

A local government unit may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees under a

respondeat superior theory of liability. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,

691 (1978); Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2003); Gibson v. County of

Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1185 (9th Cir. 2002). Rather, a local government unit may only be held

liable if it inflicts the injury complained of. Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1185. 

Generally, a claim against a local government unit for municipal or county liability

requires an allegation that “a deliberate policy, custom, or practice . . . was the ‘moving force’

behind the constitutional violation . . . suffered.” Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652,

667 (9th Cir. 2007); City of Canton, Ohio, v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). Alternatively,

and more difficult to prove, municipal liability may be imposed where the local government

unit’s omission led to the constitutional violation by its employee. Gibson at 1186. Under this

route to municipal liability, the “plaintiff must show that the municipality’s deliberate

indifference led to its omission and that the omission caused the employee to commit the

constitutional violation.” Id. Deliberate indifference requires a showing “that the municipality

was on actual or constructive notice that its omissions would likely result in a constitutional

violation.” Id.

Plaintiff has failed to allege that a deliberate policy, custom or practice led to the

violation of his constitutional rights and therefore he fails to state a cognizable claim for relief

against defendants City of Modesto and the Modesto City Police Department.

Case 1:06-cv-01156-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 10/26/07 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

4

As to Defendant Banks, the amended complaint appears to state a claim against him

based on a Fourth Amendment violation. 

D. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s amended complaint states a cognizable claim under section 1983 against

defendant Banks for violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. However, the amended

complaint does not state a cognizable against the City of Modesto or the Modesto Police

Department. The court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint,

if plaintiff wishes to do so.

If plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and wishes to proceed against

defendant Banks on his Fourth Amendment claim only, plaintiff may so notify the court in

writing. The court will then issue a Findings and Recommendations recommending that

defendants City of Modesto and the Modesto City Police Department be dismissed from this

action, and will forward plaintiff one summons and one USM-285 form to fill out and return to

the court. Upon receipt of these documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to

initiate service of process on defendant Banks.

In the event that plaintiff does wish to amend his complaint, plaintiff is advised Local

Rule 15-220 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 plaintiff files an amended complaint, the

original pleading 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.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how

each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there

is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed

Case 1:06-cv-01156-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 10/26/07 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

5

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff must

either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the court

in this order, or

b. Notify the court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended

complaint and wishes to proceed only against defendant Banks on his

Fourth Amendment claim; and

3. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure

to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 25, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01156-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 10/26/07 Page 5 of 5