Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01141/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01141-3/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

BRANDON EUGENE HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRENNEMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-1141 CKD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a Sacramento County prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil action. On July 

26, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A. Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has now filed two 

documents titled “First Amended Complaint.” Good cause appearing, the first one filed August 

22, 2022, will be stricken and the court will screen the second one filed September 6, 2022. 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

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

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

Having conducted the required screening, the court finds that plaintiff may proceed on a

claim arising under the Fourteenth Amendment against defendants Long, Moore, Gonsalvo, 

Case 2:22-cv-01141-DC-CKD Document 12 Filed 10/12/22 Page 1 of 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

2

Pashetov and Brenneman for excessive use of force. In all other respects, the first amended 

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As plaintiff has already been 

informed:

1. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link 

or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 

U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil 

rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

2. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide plaintiff with 

any protection as to jail officials simply entering his cell.

 3. In order to state a claim arising under the First Amendment for retaliation, plaintiff 

must point to facts indicating a causal connection between adverse action and protected conduct. 

Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff has not done that in his 

amended complaint. 

Finally, plaintiff asserts claims against the County of Sacramento. Municipalities cannot 

be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees. Monell v. Dep’t of 

Social Services, 436 U.S. 585 at 691, 694 (1978). “Instead, it is when execution of a 

government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts 

may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity 

is responsible under § 1983.” Id. at 694. Plaintiff has not adequately alleged in his first amended 

complaint that he suffered harm as a result of any policy or custom of Sacramento County.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERD that:

1. The Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case;

2. Service is appropriate for defendants Long, Moore, Gonsalvo, Pashetov and 

Brenneman. 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 5 USM-285 forms, one summons, an 

instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint (ECF No. 11).

/////

/////

Case 2:22-cv-01141-DC-CKD Document 12 Filed 10/12/22 Page 2 of 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

3

4. Within thirty 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 summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 2 above; 

and 

d. 6 copies of the amended complaint. 

5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants 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 defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 

of costs.

6. The “First Amended Complaint” filed by plaintiff on August 22, 2022 is stricken.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims other than a claim arising under the 

Fourteenth Amendment against defendants Long, Moore, Gonsalvo, Pashetov and Brenneman for 

excessive use of force be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 

Cir. 1991).

Dated: October 12, 2022

1

hunt1141.1

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01141-DC-CKD Document 12 Filed 10/12/22 Page 3 of 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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON EUGENE HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRENNEMAN et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-1141 CKD P

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 ___________________ 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

____________________ 

Plaintiff 

Case 2:22-cv-01141-DC-CKD Document 12 Filed 10/12/22 Page 4 of 4