Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02363/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02363-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keshan Branch
Plaintiff
Vacaville Police Department
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

KESHAN BRANCH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VACAVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-2363-EFB P 

ORDER GRANTING IFP AND DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. That request is granted, as it 

makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

However, that does not end the inquiry. Federal courts must engage in a preliminary 

screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or 

employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable 

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, 

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

///// 

 1

 While still confined to state prison, plaintiff requested a court order allowing him to 

make phone calls. ECF No. 9. Given plaintiff’s release from custody, that request is now moot. 

Case 2:14-cv-02363-EFB Document 14 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 6
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

I. Screening Standards 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

II. Screening Order 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to § 1915A and finds 

that it must be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff names the Vacaville Police Department 

as the defendant. He claims that he was bitten so badly by a police dog during the course of his 

arrest that he was taken to the hospital for surgery. He claims he was falsely imprisoned in the 

hospital for several days, where he was handcuffed to the bed and under the supervision of a 

police officer. He also claims that he was not arraigned until almost a week after he was released 

Case 2:14-cv-02363-EFB Document 14 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 6
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

from the hospital, in violation of his right to due process. As explained below, plaintiff fails to 

state a claim against the Vacaville Police Department. To proceed, plaintiff must file an amended 

complaint. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 

alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 

facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 

See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 

(9th Cir. 1978). 

Plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable for the 

unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

Instead, he must identify the particular person or persons who violated his rights. He must also 

plead facts showing how that particular person was involved in the alleged violation. 

A municipal entity or its departments is liable under section 1983 only if plaintiff shows 

that his constitutional injury was caused by employees acting pursuant to the municipality’s 

policy or custom. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977); 

Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic 

Festival Ass'n, 541 F.3d 950, 964 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, plaintiff fails to state a claim against the 

Vacaville Police Department because he has not sufficiently alleged that he was injured as a result 

of employees acting pursuant to any policy or custom . Local government entities may not be 

held vicariously liable under section 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under a 

theory of respondeat superior. See Board of Cty. Comm'rs. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). 

It is unclear whether plaintiff will be able to state a due process of false imprisonment 

claim arising from his arrest and subsequent arraignment. Those claims may be barred by Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). If plaintiff seeks to challenge the constitutionality of a 

conviction or the fact of his confinement, he may not do so in this action unless he demonstrates 

Case 2:14-cv-02363-EFB Document 14 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 6
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

that the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), 

the United States Supreme Court held that a suit for damages on a civil rights claim concerning an 

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment cannot be maintained absent proof “that 

the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, 

declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question 

by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 

486. Under Heck, the court is required to determine whether a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in 

this case would necessarily invalidate his conviction or sentence. Id. If plaintiff is claiming that 

his federal constitutional rights were violated and as a result he was convicted and incarcerated, 

plaintiff may not recover damages in this action unless he can prove that his conviction has been 

reversed. 

Lastly, plaintiff fails to properly allege a state tort claim because the complaint does not 

allege compliance with the California Torts Claims Act (Government Claims Act or “GCA”), 

which requires that a party seeking to recover money damages from a public entity or its 

employees submit a claim to the entity before filing suit in court, generally no later than six 

months after the cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905, 911.2, 945, 950.2 (emphasis 

added). Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement of the GCA but is an 

element of a plaintiff’s cause of action. Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 42 Cal. 4th 201, 209 

(2007). Thus, when a plaintiff asserts a claim subject to the GCA, he must affirmatively allege 

compliance with the claim presentation procedure, or circumstances excusing such compliance, in 

his complaint. Id. The requirement that a plaintiff asserting claims subject to the GCA must 

affirmatively allege compliance with the claims filing requirement applies in federal court as 

well. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, any 

purported state law claims must be dismissed with leave to amend for failure to allege compliance 

with the GCA. 

Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint, if plaintiff can allege a 

cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of that 

cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 

Case 2:14-cv-02363-EFB Document 14 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 6
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

(district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in 

their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 

shall clearly set forth the claims and allegations against each defendant. 

Any amended complaint must not exceed the scope of this order and may not add new, 

unrelated claims. Further, any amended complaint must cure the deficiencies identified above 

and also adhere to the following requirements: 

Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 

participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 

legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). It must also contain a caption 

including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See Local Rule 110. 

III. Summary of Order 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s request for court-ordered access to a phone (ECF No. 9) is denied as moot. 

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The amended 

complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “First 

Case 2:14-cv-02363-EFB Document 14 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 6
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

Amended Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order will result in this action 

being dismissed for failure to state a claim. If plaintiff files an amended complaint 

stating a cognizable claim the court will proceed with service of process by the United 

States Marshal. 

Dated: September 10, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02363-EFB Document 14 Filed 09/10/15 Page 6 of 6