Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00554/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00554-0/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

LEON JEROME MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0554 JAM DAD PS

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the 

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

(Dkt. No. 2.) Plaintiff, however, did not answer any of the questions asked on the in forma 

pauperis application. Accordingly, plaintiff‟s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will 

be denied without prejudice to the submission of a completed application.

Moreover, the determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not 

complete the inquiry required by the statutes. The court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case 

at any time if the allegation of poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is 

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 

relief against an immune defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous 

when it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); 

Case 2:14-cv-00554-AC Document 3 Filed 04/10/14 Page 1 of 8
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

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must 

dismiss a complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or 

where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as 

true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. 

Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 

(9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 

lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true 

conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western 

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a 

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court‟s 

jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand 

for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a).

In the complaint pending before the court plaintiff alleges as follows. On February 28, 

2013, plaintiff was involved in a single car accident. While attempting to exit the vehicle, 

defendant P. Messina, an officer with the Vallejo City Police Department, arrived on the scene 

and ordered plaintiff to exit the vehicle. Plaintiff complied, however, “without warning Messina 

deployed his Taser into [p]laintiff.” (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) at 1.) While plaintiff lay motionless on 

the ground, “Messina sprayed pepper spray into [p]laintiff‟s face,” and “released a K-9 that bit 

[p]laintiff in several parts of his body including his face.” (Id.) Defendant “Messina then beat 

[p]laintiff with a flashlight.” (Id.) Defendants T. Agustin, J. Huff and J. Bauer, “all kicked and 

punched [p]laintiff while he lay motionless on the ground.” (Id.) Based on these allegations, the 

complaint alleges that plaintiff “will be seeking damages for Monell claims due to the City of 

/////

Case 2:14-cv-00554-AC Document 3 Filed 04/10/14 Page 2 of 8
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

Vallejo[‟s] longstanding practice, policy or custom of allowing Vallejo Police Officers to use 

excessive force.” (Id. at 2.)

A municipality may be liable under § 1983 where the municipality itself causes the 

constitutional violation through a “policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or those 

whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.”1 Pursuant to the decision in 

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 6994 (1978). Municipal liability in a § 

1983 case may be premised upon: (1) an official policy; (2) a “longstanding practice or custom 

which constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local government entity;” (3) the act of 

an “official whose acts fairly represent official policy such that the challenged action constituted 

official policy;” or (4) where “an official with final policy-making authority delegated that 

authority to, or ratified the decision of, a subordinate.” Price v. Sery, 513 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 

2008).

The Ninth Circuit has “long recognized that a custom or practice can be „inferred from 

widespread practices or evidence of repeated constitutional violations for which the errant 

municipal officers were not discharged or reprimanded.‟” Hunter v. County of Sacramento, 652 

F.3d 1225, 1233-34 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Nadell v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep‟t, 268 F.3d 

924, 929 (9th Cir. 2001)). See also Hunter v. County of Sacramento, No. 2:06-cv-0457 GEB 

EFB, 2013 WL 3968663, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2013) (“Likewise, a county custom or practice 

may be inferred from evidence of repeated, but unreprimanded, constitutional violations.”). A socalled Monell claim, however, must “contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair 

notice” and those factual allegations “taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief

. . . .” AE ex rel Hernandez v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Staff 

v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Here, the Monell claim presented in plaintiff‟s complaint fails to contain any allegations 

of underlying facts and simply recites the elements of such a claim. Instructive in this regard is 

the following assessment of a Monell claim by another judge of this court:

 

1

 Although named as a defendant in the caption of plaintiff‟s complaint, the City of Vallejo is not 

identified as a defendant in the body of the complaint.

Case 2:14-cv-00554-AC Document 3 Filed 04/10/14 Page 3 of 8
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

Plaintiff‟s Monell claim against the City found is supported by his 

allegations, made on information and belief, that: (1) the City has 

failed to discipline defendants Greenberg and Kerr for the incident 

at bar; (2) members of the Vallejo Police Department, including 

defendants Greenberg and Kerr, have individually and together 

engaged in a repeated practice of using excessive force against 

individuals including plaintiff; (3) as a matter of official policy 

„rooted in an entrenched posture of deliberate indifference to the 

constitutional rights of primarily the minority citizens who live in 

the City of Vallejo‟ the City has allowed its citizens to be abused by 

police officers, including defendants Greenberg and Kerr; (4) City 

police officers have injured and killed numerous citizens in 2012 

and none of the officers involved have been disciplined or 

retrained; and (5) the City knew/had reason to know about the 

policies, etc. and the conduct complained of and resulting injuries.

Howard v. City of Vallejo, No. CIV. S-13-1439 LKK/KJN, 2013 WL 6070494, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 

Nov. 13, 2013). See also Bass v. City of Fremont, No. C12-4943 TEH, 2013 WL 891090, at *4 

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013) (“In support of his municipal liability claim, Bass alleges that prior to 

Bass‟s arrest, Steckler, the Police Department, and the City had been given notice that Macciola 

and Alberti were engaged in a pattern and practice of using unnecessary and excessive force and 

falsely reporting crimes, and that the municipal entities „demonstrated deliberate indifference to 

this pattern and practice of constitutional violations by failing to take necessary appropriate or 

adequate measures to prevent the continued perpetuation of this pattern of conduct.‟ Bass further 

alleges that the municipal entities failed to adequately train the officers „in the necessity of having 

probable cause to detain, arrest or charge a citizen (such as Plaintiff) with a crime or infraction, 

and to further refrain from discriminating against African American citizens simply by virtue of 

their ethnicity and/or by virtue of a citizen‟s right to verbally confront and/or question the 

performance of a public official.‟ These allegations are plausible and are sufficient to give the 

municipal entities notice of the specific policies, customs, and practices that are alleged to have 

caused the deprivation of Bass‟s rights; Bass has therefore stated a claim for relief under 

Monell.”); Wise v. Nordell, No. 12-CV-1209 IEG (BGS), 2012 WL 3959263, at *9 (S.D. Cal. 

Sept. 10, 2012) (“Plaintiffs allege that Nordell acted contrary to county policy and violated their 

constitutional rights, that he has acted in this manner for years, and that the County has condoned 

his conduct. Taking these allegations as true, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a claim for 

municipal liability under Monell.”); East v. City of Richmond, No. C 10-2392 SBA, 2010 WL 

Case 2:14-cv-00554-AC Document 3 Filed 04/10/14 Page 4 of 8
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

4580112, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2010) (“However, Plaintiff‟s claim is not predicated solely on 

Chief Magnus‟ failure to act in this particular instance. Rather, the FAC alleges that Chief 

Magnus knew of other, repeated acts of misconduct by Officers Hauschild and Souza, but yet, 

failed to take any corrective action against these officers. Such allegations are sufficient to state a 

plausible claim for liability under Monell.”).

Moreover, although identified in plaintiff‟s complaint as defendants, there are no specific 

claims asserted in the complaint against defendant Messina, defendant Agustin, defendant Huff or 

defendant Bauer. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, 

a complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff‟s claims and must allege facts that 

state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v. 

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers „labels 

and conclusions‟ or „a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.‟ Nor 

does a complaint suffice if it tenders „naked assertions‟ devoid of „further factual 

enhancements.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 

557. A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the 

defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff‟s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.

Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, plaintiff‟s complaint will be dismissed for 

failure to state a cognizable claim. The undersigned has carefully considered whether plaintiff 

may amend the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for 

denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” California 

Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988). See also

Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass‟n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) 

(holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile 

amendments). However, when evaluating the failure to state a claim, the complaint of a pro se 

plaintiff may be dismissed “only where „it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no 

set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.‟” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 

F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). See also

Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint 

Case 2:14-cv-00554-AC Document 3 Filed 04/10/14 Page 5 of 8
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

without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 

complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 

1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Here, it appears clear that the granting of leave to amend would not be futile.2 Plaintiff‟s 

complaint will therefore be dismissed, and he will be granted leave to file an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that if he elects to file an amended complaint “the tenet that a 

court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal 

conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. “While legal conclusions can 

provide the complaint‟s framework, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Id. at 679. 

Those facts must be sufficient to push the claims “across the line from conceivable to 

plausible[.]” Id. at 680 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

In any amended complaint he elects to file, plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating how 

the conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of his federal constitutional or statutory 

rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Moreover, plaintiff must allege in 

specific terms how each named defendant was involved in the deprivation of his rights. There 

 

2

 It appears from the allegations of the original complaint that plaintiff may well be able to 

successfully amend to state a cognizable excessive use force claim against one or more of the 

individual defendants. To state such a claim under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 for violation of the Fourth 

Amendment based upon the alleged excessive use of force, a complaint must allege that the 

amount of force used by a police officer was not objectively reasonable in light of the totality of 

the circumstances facing the officer, taking into account a range of factors to assess the amount of 

force used and the governmental interests at stake. See Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 396 

(1989); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 711 F.3d 941, 966 (9th Cir. 2013). “[T]he most important 

single element” of the Graham framework is “whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to 

the safety of the officers or others.” Moss, 711 F.3d at 966 (quoting Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 

1432, 1441 (9th Cir.1994)). It is also possible that plaintiff may be able to successfully amend his 

complaint to state a cognizable federal claim against one or more of the individual defendants for 

unlawful seizure based upon a false arrest. To state such a claim a complaint must allege facts 

showing that the defendant “by means of physical force or show of authority . . . in some way 

restrained the liberty of” the identified plaintiff. Graham, 490 U.S. at 395, n. 10 (citing Terry v. 

Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19, n. 16 (1968) and Brower v. County of lnyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596 (1989)). “A 

claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, 

provided the arrest was without probable cause or other justification.” Dubner v. City and County 

of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 964-65 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Case 2:14-cv-00554-AC Document 3 Filed 04/10/14 Page 6 of 8
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

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); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 

(9th Cir. 1978). 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).

Plaintiff is also reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an 

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be complete 

in itself without reference to prior pleadings. The amended complaint will supersede the original 

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, in an amended complaint, 

just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case, each defendant must be listed in the caption 

and identified in the body of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any amended complaint which plaintiff may elect to file 

must also include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct and events 

which underlie plaintiff‟s claims.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s February 26, 2014, application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 

No. 2) is denied without prejudice.

2. The complaint filed February 26, 2014 (Dkt. No. 1) is dismissed with leave to 

amend.

3. Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, an amended complaint 

shall be filed that cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the case 

number assigned to this action and must be titled “Amended Complaint.”

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-00554-AC Document 3 Filed 04/10/14 Page 7 of 8
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

8

4. Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: April 9, 2014

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.pro se\martin0554.ifp.lta.ord.docx

Case 2:14-cv-00554-AC Document 3 Filed 04/10/14 Page 8 of 8