Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00023/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00023-1/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; and OFFICER GILBERT 

S. HALL, BADGE # 454, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0023-AC 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was transferred from the Fresno 

Division of this court (ECF No. 3), and referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local 

Rule”) 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that 

plaintiff is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. ECF No. 2. Accordingly, 

the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

I. SCREENING 

 Granting IFP status does not end the court’s inquiry, however. The federal IFP statute 

requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Case 2:16-cv-00023-JAM-AC Document 5 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 7
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

 Plaintiffs must assist the court in making this determination by drafting their complaint so 

that it contains a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the 

reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), as well as a short and plain 

statement showing that plaintiffs are entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiffs, and in 

what way). Plaintiffs’ claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. See “Rule 8” of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federalrules-civil-procedure. 

 Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. 

They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 

95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 

court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at 

Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 2010). 

 However, the court need not accept as true, legal conclusions cast in the form of factual 

allegations, or allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice. See Western 

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 

266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.), as amended, 275 F.3d 1187 (2001). 

 Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and may 

only be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support 

of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 

2014). A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-00023-JAM-AC Document 5 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 7
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

opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 

II. THE COMPLAINT 

 According to the complaint, on December 17, 2015 at 9:30 a.m., at the Gospel Mission at 

400 Bannon Street in Sacramento, defendant Hall used excessive force on plaintiff while Hall was 

trying to clear the sidewalk of homeless people. The complaint further alleges that as a result, 

plaintiff was injured in his foot and ankle, and defendant refused him medical attention. The 

complaint contains no allegations against the Sacramento County Police Department. 

III. ANALYSIS 

 The complaint states a cognizable Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) claim for relief against 

defendant Hall for the use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. If the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable 

opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. 

 However, the complaint fails to state a cognizable claim against Sacramento County 

Police Department. The Police Department cannot be held liable under Section 1983 based solely 

upon the conduct of Officer Hall, as that would be “vicarious liability.” See Connick v. 

Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011)) (municipal defendants “are not vicariously liable under 

§ 1983 for their employees’ actions”). Instead, the Police Department can be held liable only for 

the harm caused by its own actions and policies. Id. (municipal defendants “are responsible only 

for their own illegal acts”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of 

City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Therefore, “to prevail on a Fourth Amendment § 1983 

claim against a municipal defendant or police department,” plaintiff must allege facts showing: 

(1) that he was “deprived of [his] constitutional rights by 

defendants and their employees acting under color of state law; 

(2) that the defendants have customs or policies which amount to 

deliberate indifference to ... constitutional rights; and (3) that these 

policies [were] the moving force behind the constitutional 

violations.” 

Gant v. County of Los Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 617 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Lee v. City of Los 

Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

Case 2:16-cv-00023-JAM-AC Document 5 Filed 02/01/16 Page 3 of 7
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

 One way the “customs or policies” requirement can be satisfied is if plaintiff can 

truthfully allege facts showing that he was harmed by the Police Department’s custom or policy 

of conducting inadequate “training or supervision,” where that training or supervision “is 

sufficiently inadequate as to constitute ‘deliberate indifference’ to the righ[t]s of persons” with 

whom its officers come into contact. Davis v. City of Ellensburg, 869 F.2d 1230, 1235 (9th 

Cir. 1989) (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989)). The requirement can also be 

satisfied if plaintiff can truthfully allege facts showing that the Department ratified Officer Hall’s 

allegedly unconstitutional conduct. See Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737 (1989) 

(Section 1983 claim may be made out by acquiescence in a longstanding practice or custom 

which constitutes the “standard operating procedure” of the local governmental entity). 

 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges no such facts against the Department, and therefore, the 

complaint fails to state a claim against it. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to 

this action. 

 2. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), is GRANTED. 

 3. Plaintiff may proceed now to serve Officer Hall, as set forth below (instructions 

numbered 5-9), and pursue his claims against only that defendant. Alternatively, he may delay 

serving Officer Hall, and attempt to state a cognizable claim against the Sacramento County 

Police Department. 

 4. If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim 

against the Police Department, he has thirty days so to do (and he may skip instructions 

numbered 5-9, below). He is not obligated to amend his complaint, and may instead proceed only 

against Officer Hall (see instructions 5-9, below). If plaintiff chooses to amend so that he can sue 

the Police Department, the amended complaint will also be subject to screening. 

 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

Case 2:16-cv-00023-JAM-AC Document 5 Filed 02/01/16 Page 4 of 7
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

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. In the amended complaint, as in the 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

 5. If plaintiff elects to proceed now against Officer Hall alone, then within thirty days 

he must return the materials for service of process that are enclosed with this order, as described 

below. In this event the court will construe plaintiff’s election as consent to the dismissal of all 

claims against the Sacramento County Police Department, without prejudice. 

 6. Service is appropriate for the following defendant: Officer Gilbert S. Hall, Badge 

# 454. 

 7. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form for each defendant, one 

summons, a copy of the complaint filed December 30, 2015 (ECF No. 1), an instruction sheet, 

and an appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge. 

 8. Within 30 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice 

of Submission of Documents, and submit the following documents to the court: 

 a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents; 

 b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3, above; 

 c. One completed summons; 

 d. One copy of the endorsed complaint for each defendant; and 

 e. A completed form to consent or decline to consent to trial by the magistrate 

judge. 

 9. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant and need not request waiver of service. 

Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to 

serve the above-named defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 

of costs. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-00023-JAM-AC Document 5 Filed 02/01/16 Page 5 of 7
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 

6

 10. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with a court order. 

DATED: January 29, 2016 

 

Case 2:16-cv-00023-JAM-AC Document 5 Filed 02/01/16 Page 6 of 7
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 

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; and OFFICER GILBERT 

S. HALL, BADGE # 454, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-0023-AC 

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS 

 Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed 

_____________________: 

 ____ completed summons form 

 ____ completed USM-285 forms 

 ____ copies of the complaint 

 ____ completed form to consent or decline to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction 

____________________________________ ____________________________________ 

Date Plaintiff 

Case 2:16-cv-00023-JAM-AC Document 5 Filed 02/01/16 Page 7 of 7