Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05185/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05185-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

VINCENT JACOBO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROSS MIRKARIMI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05185-JSC 

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against the San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, the San Francisco 

Sheriff’s Department, and four Sheriff’s Department employees working at the jail.1 His 

application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons explained 

below, the claims against the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department are dismissed with leave to 

amend, and the claims against the other defendants are found cognizable. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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 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). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). (Dkt. 5.) 

Case 3:14-cv-05185-JSC Document 6 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 4
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

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 

statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to 

state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to 

provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to 

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. Pro se pleadings must be liberally 

construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

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 alleged 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

When liberally construed, Plaintiff's allegations that Defendants Lieutenant Minor, Deputy 

Neu, Deputy Jones, and Deputy Gray, used excessive force against him states a cognizable claim 

against them for violating his constitutional rights to due process and to be free from cruel and 

unusual punishment. He alleges that these defendants beat him, kicked him, knocked him out and 

injured his ears after he insulted another jail staff member, despite the fact that Plaintiff was 

handcuffed and not resisting them when they applied this force. 

Plaintiff has also listed the Sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, and the San Francisco Sheriff’s 

Department as defendants, but he does not allege any actions or involvement by them in the use of 

force. The fact that these defendants are the superior and employer, respectively, of the other 

defendants is not enough on its own to make them liable for the conduct of their subordinates and 

employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (under no circumstances is 

Case 3:14-cv-05185-JSC Document 6 Filed 02/02/15 Page 2 of 4
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

there respondeat superior liability, i.e. liability solely because one is responsible for the actions or 

omissions of another under section 1983); see also Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & 

Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1085 (9th Cir. 2013) (liability may be imposed on an individual 

defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions both 

actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right). In addition, the 

San Francisco Sheriff’s Department as a municipal entity is only liable if it had a policy or pattern 

or practice that caused the alleged violations. See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 

130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997) (to impose municipal liability under § 1983 for a violation of 

constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of 

which he or she was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts 

to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the 

moving force behind the constitutional violation). Plaintiff makes no such allegations against the 

Sheriff’s Department. Consequently, the complaint will be dismissed as to the Sheriff and the 

Sheriff’s Department, but Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies in 

his claims against them provided that he follows the instructions below. 

Once Plaintiff has amended his complaint or the deadline for doing so passes, the Court 

will issue a further order regarding his cognizable claims against Defendants Minor, Neu, Jones 

and Gray.

CONCLUSION

1. The claims against Defendants San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi and the San 

Francisco County Sheriff’s Department are dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint within twenty eight (28) days from the date this order is filed. The 

amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (No. C 14-

5185 JSC (PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the 

first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, see Ferdik 

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the 

original by reference; he must include in his amended complaint all the claims for the original 

complaint that he still wishes to pursue, including the claims against the other defendants that 

Case 3:14-cv-05185-JSC Document 6 Filed 02/02/15 Page 3 of 4
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

were found cognizable above. Failure to amend within the designated time and in accordance with 

this order will result in the dismissal of the claims against Defendants Mirkarimi and the San 

Francisco County Sheriff’s Department, but not the other defendants 

2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 

Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion, although he 

may request an extension of time provided it is accompanied by a showing of good cause and it is 

filed on or before the deadline he wants to extend. 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2015

_________________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-05185-JSC Document 6 Filed 02/02/15 Page 4 of 4