Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04538/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04538-1/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-4538 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

BRUCE WAYNE ALLEN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

S.F.P.D.; et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 14-4538 LB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

[Re: ECF No. 10]

INTRODUCTION

Bruce Wayne Allen, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se prisoner's civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Earlier, the court reviewed the complaint and dismissed it

with leave to amend so that Mr. Allen could provide the name of the officer who allegedly used

excessive force on him or to identify him as a Doe defendant. Mr. Allen's amended complaint is

now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This order dismisses the action without

prejudice to Mr. Allen filing a new action if he learns the name of the officer he wishes to sue. 

STATEMENT

In his amended complaint, Mr. Allen complains of events that allegedly occurred during his

arrest on June 25, 2014 by an officer from the San Francisco Police Department. He alleges that,

during his arrest, he was assaulted by an unidentified plain clothes police officer from the San

Case 3:14-cv-04538-LB Document 12 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 3
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-4538 LB

ORDER 2

Francisco Police Department, "was beaten and placed in an illegal carotid choke hold," and was

punched repeatedly in the face by the officer. ECF No. 10 at 1. Attached to the amended complaint

is a copy of a portion of an incident report, but that excerpt does not provide the name of the

arresting officer who allegedly used force on Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen alleges that he was unable to

learn the name of the arresting officer. Mr. Allen did not attempt to use a Doe defendant designation

to sue the arresting officer. 

ANALYSIS

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). Pro se

complaints must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

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 violation was

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988).

In the order of dismissal with leave to amend, the court explained that Mr. Allen had adequately

alleged a claim that excessive force had been used on him but had a defendant problem because he

had identified the defendant as only his arresting officer, which did not sufficiently identify the

defendant among the many officers in the San Francisco Police Department. The court provided

these instructions:

Leave to amend will be granted so that Mr. Allen may attempt to provide the true name for the

arresting officer, including his star or badge number if that is known – information which might

be provided on the arrest report. If Mr. Allen cannot provide the name of the arresting officer,

he can sue him as a John Doe defendant in his amended complaint. For example, in place of the

allegation in the complaint that "'the arresting officer' punched me repeatedly in my face," Id. at

3, the amended complaint could allege that "John Doe punched me repeatedly in my face." 

ECF No. 6 at 2-3.

The amended complaint does not cure the defendant problem identified in the order of dismissal

Case 3:14-cv-04538-LB Document 12 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 3
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-4538 LB

ORDER 3

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

with leave to amend. As with the original complaint, the amended complaint alleges that some

unidentified officer used excessive force on Mr. Allen. The "incident report" attached to the

amended complaint apparently was written by the arresting officer who states that he used force to

subdue Mr. Allen who attempted to flee from police. The incident report does not provide the name

of that arresting officer. Mr. Allen states that other officers, whose names, are on the incident

report, were "involved," Docket # 10, but he does not allege that any one of those officers used force

on him and the incident report describes their involvement as occurring after the force was used by

the arresting officer. The amended complaint will be dismissed. 

Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile. Mr. Allen has been

informed of the need to provide a name for the arresting officer (or to name him as a “John Doe”)

who allegedly used force on him and he was unable or unwilling to do so. Although the action is

being dismissed, the dismissal will be without prejudice to Mr. Allen filing a new action if he ever

learns the name of the arresting officer who he believes used excessive force on him. Mr. Allen is

cautioned that there is a two-year statute of limitations for filing a § 1983 action alleging an

excessive force claim in California.

In his amended complaint, Mr. Allen stated he would like to file motions, including a Pitchess

motion, and would like to file charges for tampering with evidence and perjury. If Mr. Allen wants

to file motions pertaining to the criminal charges pending against him, he must file his motions in

that criminal case. If he wants to file criminal charges against someone, he should contact the local

law enforcement agency. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED. The dismissal is without prejudice to Mr

Allen filing a new action against the officer who allegedly used excessive force if he ever learns that

officer's true name. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04538-LB Document 12 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 3