Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00637/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00637-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL DAUGHENBOUGH,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL HENNESSEY 

(Sheriff); et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-637 SI (pr)

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Darryl Daughenbough, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review under

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Daughenbough alleges the following about events that occurred at the

San Francisco County Jail. On October 4, 2007, he was told to move his sleeping quarters from

a mattress on the floor to a top bunk. He did not want to move to a top bunk because he has

psychiatric problems that cause him to sleep roughly, he has nerve damage in his neck and back,

and was concerned he would fall out of a top bunk and hurt himself. He alerted deputy Harris

and sergeant Hauer to his concerns, but they nonetheless insisted that Daughenbough move.

Daughenbough gathered his property and bed-roll, but refused to sleep on a top bunk. He

therefore was put in a safety cell, apparently for about a day.

Case 3:08-cv-00637-SI Document 3 Filed 09/29/08 Page 1 of 5
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

2

While sleeping in the safety cell, Daughenbough was kicked in the back by deputy Harris,

who told him, "I was just checking to see if you were alive," and walked away laughing.

Complaint, p. 6. In the early morning hours, Daughenbough was again awakened by being

kicked in the back, this time being kicked by deputy Tilton. Later that day he was taken back

to the regular housing unit. He tied himself into his bunk each night so he did not fall out of his

bunk while he slept. The length of time he had to sleep in the top bunk is not identified, but he

does state that he has since been moved to another unit. 

DISCUSSION

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)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

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).

A prisoner has the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, including physical

abuse by guards. Whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in

violation of the Eighth Amendment, the core judicial inquiry is whether force was applied in a

good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 317 (1986)).

If, at the time of the incident, Daughenbough was a pretrial detainee, his claim would arise under

the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment. See Graham v. Connor, 490

U.S. 386, 395 n.10. (1989) (pretrial detainee protected from use of excessive force by Due

Case 3:08-cv-00637-SI Document 3 Filed 09/29/08 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment).

Liberally construed, the allegations of the complaint state cognizable claims against

defendants Harris and Tilton for the use of excessive force based on their acts of kicking

Daughenbough while he was sleeping in the safety cell. The earlier events, i.e., threatening

Daughenbough to try to get him to move to a top bunk did not amount to a constitutional

violation. And the allegations that Daughenbough was required to sleep in a top bunk do not

state a claim upon which relief can be granted; he never was injured as a result of sleeping in the

top bunk, as he was able to restrain himself to avert the risk that allegedly existed for him, and

has since been moved to a different unit in the jail. 

San Francisco Sheriff Hennessey is named as a defendant. The complaint does not allege

that he had any personal involvement with Daughenbough's problem and apparently was named

as a defendant because he is in charge of the jail. There is no respondeat superior liability under

Section 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions

of an employee. Liability under Section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal

participation by the defendant. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, Sheriff Hennessey is dismissed without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. The complaint states a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants

Harris and Tilton for an Eighth Amendment violation (or a Fourteenth Amendment violation if

plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the time of the alleged incidents). The other defendants are

dismissed without prejudice.

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint and a copy of all the documents in

the case file upon San Francisco Sheriff's Deputy Harris and San Francisco Sheriff's Deputy

Tilton both of whom apparently are employed in Dorm C-3 at the San Francisco County Jail #2.

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for

Case 3:08-cv-00637-SI Document 3 Filed 09/29/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than December 19, 2008, defendants must file and serve a motion

for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they must so inform the court prior to the date the

motion is due.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion

must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than January 30, 2009.

Plaintiff must bear in mind the following notice and warning regarding summary judgment as

he prepares his opposition to any summary judgment motion:

The defendants may make a motion for summary judgment by which they

seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule

56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. [¶] 

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no

genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact

that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary

judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case.

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is

properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply

rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents,

as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants'

declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact

for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary

judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. (See Rand v.

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and

served no later than February 13, 2009.

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. The court may disregard

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant's

counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to

defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to

counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

5. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 3:08-cv-00637-SI Document 3 Filed 09/29/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

6. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the

court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of

address in every pending case every time he is moved to a new facility. 

7. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this

case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2008 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00637-SI Document 3 Filed 09/29/08 Page 5 of 5