Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01580/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01580-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR SANCHEZ, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

COUNTY OF TULARE, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:07cv001580 LJO GSA

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER

FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT OR

NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO

PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS

GONZALEZ AND WALLACE

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Victor Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

October 29, 2007. 

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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to

state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint

can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

Case 1:07-cv-01580-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 5
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

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Plaintiff’s claims

Plaintiff alleges that on March 11, 2006, Sergeant John Gonzalez and Detective Mike

Wallace of the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department approached Plaintiff’s vehicle in Earlimart,

California located in Tulare County. The officers requested that Plaintiff get out of his car and

they physically assaulted him without reason. As a result, Plaintiff suffered severe facial

abrasions as well as neck and back injuries. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and requests that

the officers be permanently removed from their position.

C. Analysis

1. Defendants Gonzales and Wallace

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizen of the United States. . . to the deprivation of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution. . . shall be liable to the

party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for

redress. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

At a minimum, in order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege

that: (1) a person was acting under color of state law at the time the act complained of was

committed; and (2) that person’s conduct deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Paratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535

(1981). To warrant relief under the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must allege and show that

defendant’s acts or omissions caused the deprivation of his constitutionally protected rights. Leer

v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1993). Thus, the statute plainly requires that there be an

actual causal connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged

to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658

(1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Construing the facts as alleged as true, and in the

light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Defendants Gonzalez and Wallace’s conduct was an illegal

Case 1:07-cv-01580-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 5
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

seizure and violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the complaint states a

cognizable claim for relief under section 1983 against Defendants Gonzales and Wallace.

2. Defendants Tulare County and Tulare County Sheriff’s Department

The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which the complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743

(9th Cir. 1978). Thus, the requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind

of direct personal participation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by other which the

actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury. 

Id. This standard of causation “...closely resembles the standard ‘foreseeability’ formulation of

proximate cause.” Arnold v. International Bus. Mach. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.

1981).

A local government unit may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees under a

respondeat superior theory of liability. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,

691 (1978); Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2003); Gibson v. County of

Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1185 (9th Cir. 2002). Rather, a local government unit may only be held

liable if it inflicts the injury complained of. Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1185. 

Generally, a claim against a local government unit for municipal or county liability

requires an allegation that “a deliberate policy, custom, or practice . . . was the ‘moving force’

behind the constitutional violation . . . suffered.” Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652,

667 (9th Cir. 2007); City of Canton, Ohio, v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). Alternatively,

and more difficult to prove, municipal liability may be imposed where the local government

unit’s omission led to the constitutional violation by its employee. Gibson at 1186. Under this

route to municipal liability, the “plaintiff must show that the municipality’s deliberate

indifference led to its omission and that the omission caused the employee to commit the

constitutional violation.” Id. Deliberate indifference requires a showing “that the municipality

Case 1:07-cv-01580-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 11/19/07 Page 3 of 5
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

was on actual or constructive notice that its omissions would likely result in a constitutional

violation.” Id.

Plaintiff has failed to state a § 1983 claim against Tulare County or the Tulare County

Sheriff’s Department because he has failed to allege that a deliberate policy, custom, or practice

was the moving force behind the constitutional violation suffered, or that local government unit’s

omission led to the constitutional violation by its employee. The Court will, however, grant

Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint with regard to those Defendants pursuant to the

instructions below. 

C. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for relief under section 1983 against

Defendants Gonzales and Wallace for a violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. 

However, Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim under section 1983 against Defendants

Tulare County or the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department. The court will provide Plaintiff the

opportunity to file an amended complaint, if Plaintiff wishes to do so.

If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and is agreeable to proceeding

only against Defendants Gonzales and Wallace for a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights,

Plaintiff may so notify the court in writing, and the Court will issue a Findings and

Recommendations recommending that Defendants Tulare County and the Tulare County

Sheriff’s Department be dismissed from this action. The Court will also forward Plaintiff two

summonses and two USM-285 forms for completion and return. Upon receipt of the forms, the

Court will direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of process.

In the event that Plaintiff does wish to file a second amended complaint, Plaintiff is

advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc.,

114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and

must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule

15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are

not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v.

Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Case 1:07-cv-01580-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 11/19/07 Page 4 of 5
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

If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must allege that Tulare County or

the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department had a deliberate policy, custom, or practice that was the

‘moving force’ behind constitutional violation suffered by the Plaintiff. Galen v. County of Los

Angeles, at 667. City of Canton, Ohio, v. Harris, at 385. Alternatively, Plaintiff must allege that

the local government unit’s omission led to the constitutional violation by its employee. Gibson

at 1186. Under this route to municipal liability, the “plaintiff must show that the municipality’s

deliberate indifference led to its omission and that the omission caused the employee to commit

the constitutional violation.” Id. Deliberate indifference requires a showing “that the

municipality was on actual or constructive notice that its’ omissions would likely result in a

constitutional violation.” Id.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must

either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the court

in this order, or

b. Notify the court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended

complaint and wishes to proceed only against Defendants Gonzales

Wallace on his Fourth Amendment claim; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure

to obey a Court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 16, 2007 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01580-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 11/19/07 Page 5 of 5