Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01385/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01385-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL L. MAXEY, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

PAUL VAN DALEN, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1385 REC/LJO

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGED

VIOLATION OF EIGHTH

AMENDMENT (Doc. 25) 

Plaintiff, who is presently incarcerated and proceeding in

pro per, has filed a Complaint which alleges in pertinent part:

My eighth Amendment right to be protected,

and free from cruel and unusual punishment

was violated when Officer Paul Van Dalen

repeatedly hit me with his metal baton after

I was injured, cornered and openly submitted

myself to arrest, while Officer Brandi

Phoebus stood there and watched.

Defendants move to dismiss the claim for alleged violation

of the Eighth Amendment for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. 

The court has reviewed the record herein, including

Case 1:05-cv-01385-LJO-LJO Document 30 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 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

2

plaintiff’s opposition (a copy of which was provided to the court

by defendants) and concludes that dismissal of plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment claim is required.

There is no question that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition

against cruel and unusual punishment applies only after

conviction and sentence. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393 &

n.6 (1989). “[E]xcessive force claims arising before or during

arrest are to be analyzed exclusively under the fourth

amendment’s reasonableness standard rather than the due process

standard ....” Reed v. Hoyt, 909 F.2d 324, 329 (9 Cir. 1989), th

cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1250 (1991). Therefore, to the extent

that plaintiff is alleging excessive force during his arrest, his

claim must be construed as alleging a violation of the Fourth

Amendment, not the Eighth Amendment.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim in the Complaint

alleging excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment is

granted and the claimed violation of the Eighth Amendment is

dismissed with prejudice.

2. In all further proceedings in this action, plaintiff’s

claim alleging excessive force during his arrest will be

construed and resolved as a claim of excessive force in violation

of the Fourth Amendment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01385-LJO-LJO Document 30 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 2