Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02000/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02000-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry James Brookshire
Plaintiff
Carver
Defendant
Montano
Defendant
Sacramento County Main Jail
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

LARRY JAMES BROOKSHIRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIN 

JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-2000-JDP (P)

ORDER; FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Sacramento County Jail, alleges that defendants violated his 

Fourteenth Amendment rights by using excessive force against him and failing to provide him 

with adequate medical care. ECF No. 12 at 5, 6-8. After reviewing the third amended complaint, 

I find that the excessive force claims against defendants Jason Carver and Gabriel Montano are 

cognizable and should proceed. I find that the complaint fails to state a viable claim against any 

other defendant. I will direct plaintiff to submit service documents for Carver and Montano and 

recommend that his other claims be dismissed for failure to state a viable claim.

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 

Case 2:23-cv-02000-DC-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/14/25 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

dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, 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. 

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that on May 31, 2023, he arrived at the Sacramento County Jail after 

undergoing a procedure at the Mercy San Juan Hospital. ECF No. 12 at 5. He claims that 

defendants Carver and Montano were responsible for transporting him and, in doing so, used 

restraints that exacerbated known injuries to his wrist and back. Id. Plaintiff has checked the 

form box characterizing these allegations as excessive force, id., but they can also be 

characterized as denial of adequate medical care. Regardless, plaintiff’s allegations fall under the 

Fourteenth Amendment insofar as he appears to be a pre-trial detainee. See Pierce v. Cnty. of 

Case 2:23-cv-02000-DC-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/14/25 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

Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008). These allegations are, for screening purposes, 

cognizable and should proceed.

Plaintiff’s other claims should be dismissed. He alleges that a number of unidentified 

deputies and medical staff at the Sacramento County Jail ignored his medical complaints in 

violation of policy. ECF No. 12 at 6-8. Even assuming this claim is sufficiently related to the 

allegations against Carver and Montano to proceed in the same suit, plaintiff has failed to identify 

any individual members of the jail medical staff who violated his rights. Instead, he has sued 

Sacramento County, the jail itself, and Adult Correctional Health. There is no allegation that any 

policy or custom implemented by these entities was responsible for the violation of plaintiff’s 

rights. Instead, plaintiff alleges that staff failed to give him timely medical care and ignored signs 

that his wounds were infected. Id. at 7-8. Again, however, none of the offending staff members 

are identified. 

This case has been pending at the screening stage for more than a year, and this is 

plaintiff’s third amended complaint. I find that further opportunities to amend are unwarranted. 

Plaintiff shall submit service documents for his Fourteenth Amendment claims against Carver and 

Montano. His other claims should be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff may proceed with the Fourteenth Amendment claims against Carver and 

Montano deemed cognizable in this order. 

2. The clerk of court shall send plaintiff a USM-285 forms, a summons, a Notice of 

Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed August 

14, 2024, ECF No. 12.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court with the 

following documents:

a. one completed summons for the defendants;

b. two completed USM-285 forms; and 

c. three copies of the signed August 14, 2024 complaint.

Case 2:23-cv-02000-DC-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/14/25 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

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant and need not request waiver of 

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the U.S. Marshals 

Service to serve the above defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, without 

payment of costs by plaintiff. 

5. The failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for 

failure to prosecute.

6. The Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this action.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Sacramento 

County, Sacramento County Jail, and Adult Correctional Health be dismissed for the reasons 

stated in the above findings and recommendations.

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 of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02000-DC-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/14/25 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY JAMES BROOKSHIRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIN 

JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-2000-JDP (P)

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS

In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff must submit:

 1 completed summons form

 2 completed forms USM-285 

 3 copies of the August 14, 2024 complaint

_________________________________

Plaintiff

Dated: 

Case 2:23-cv-02000-DC-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/14/25 Page 5 of 5