Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00489/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00489-12/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 

PATRICK BRADY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT R. JONES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0489 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner1

 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The matter has been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On August 6, 2021, the complaint was dismissed on screening and judgment was entered. 

ECF Nos. 23, 24. Plaintiff appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed 

in part, reversed, in part, and remanded. ECF No. 32. The mandate has now issued. ECF No. 36. 

Accordingly, pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Appeals, it is now ordered that the 

case shall proceed on the following claims against the following defendants: 

 Claim One, alleging plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was 

violated by defendants Jones, Luke, Hampton, Pfau, and Saika when they placed and 

1

 At the time plaintiff filed the original complaint, he was a pretrial detainee facing federal 

charges and was being housed at Sacramento County Main Jail. See ECF No. 1 at 1-2. 

Case 2:21-cv-00489-TLN-AC Document 40 Filed 07/20/23 Page 1 of 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 

2 

retained plaintiff in the TSU for reasons that did not justify such a restrictive housing 

designation (see ECF No. 16 at 9-13); 

 Claim Two, alleging plaintiff’s First Amendment right to privately confer with 

counsel and his Sixth Amendment right to attorney-client confidentiality were violated by 

defendants Jones, Luke and Hampton when they failed to provide confidential settings for 

plaintiff’s legal visits (see ECF No. 16 at 13-16); and 

 Claim Three, alleging plaintiff’s First Amendment right to privately confer with 

counsel and his Sixth Amendment right to attorney-client confidentiality were violated by 

defendants Jones, Hampton and Meeks when they knowingly recorded four of his legal 

visits (see ECF No. 16 at 16-19). 

 Service of the FAC is appropriate as to these claims and defendants. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), service of the first 

amended complaint (ECF No. 16) and the cognizable claims therein is appropriate; 

 2. Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims against the following defendants, all of whom 

were employees of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department during the relevant period: 

 Sheriff Scott Jones; 

 Commander Brandon Luke; 

 Deputy Lieutenant Shaun Hampton; 

 Deputy Sergeant Pfau; 

 Deputy Sergeant Saika, and 

 Deputy Captain Meeks. 

 3. If defendants either waive service or are personally served, they are required to reply 

to the complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2). 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:21-cv-00489-TLN-AC Document 40 Filed 07/20/23 Page 2 of 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 

3 

 Under separate order, the court shall direct that service be initiated on these defendants 

under the court’s E-Service Pilot Program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of 

California. 

DATED: July 19, 2023 

Case 2:21-cv-00489-TLN-AC Document 40 Filed 07/20/23 Page 3 of 3