Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01980/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01980-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anderson
Defendant
Alfred Fitzgerald Hood
Plaintiff
Klein
Defendant
Mara
Defendant
Patton
Defendant
Rosen
Defendant
Rossi
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

ALFRED FITZGERALD HOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP (PC)

ORDER

FINDING THAT THE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT STATES A COGNIZABLE 

EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS MARA, PATTON, AND 

ANDERSON

DIRECTING TO PLAINTIFF TO 

INDICATE HIS INTENT TO PROCEED 

ONLY WITH THOSE CLAIMS OR DELAY 

SERVING ANY DEFENDANT AND FILE 

ANOTHER AMENDED COMPLAINT

ECF No. 13

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 

Plaintiff, a former inmate, alleges that defendants Anderson, Mara, Patton, Klein, and 

Rossi, officers with the Roseville police department and, Rosen, a physician at the Sutter 

Roseville Medical Center, violated his rights. Specifically, he alleges that the officer defendants 

used excessive force against him during his arrest, ECF No. 13 at 5-7, and that defendant Rosen 

committed malpractice and somehow assisted the Roseville Police Department in framing him, 

id. at 9. After review of the amended complaint, I find that it states viable excessive force claims 

against defendants Mara, Patton, and Anderson. No other claims are viable. Plaintiff may either 

Case 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP Document 16 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 4
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

proceed only with the viable claims, or delay serving any defendant and file another amended 

complaint.

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 

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)).

Case 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP Document 16 Filed 03/11/24 Page 2 of 4
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

II. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that the officer defendants used excessive force against him during an 

arrest on July 31, 2020. ECF No. 13 at 5-7. He claims that he was sleeping in his car with the 

music on when officers Mara and Patton woke him. Id. He claims that Patton unnecessarily 

pointed a gun at his chest and that Mara punched him in the face, opened the car door, and forced 

him onto the ground. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff claims that defendant Anderson was present, and, 

construed liberally, the complaint states a viable claim for failure to intervene against him. Id. at 

7. These excessive force claims fall under the Fourth Amendment insofar as plaintiff alleges that 

he was a free citizen at the time of the arrest. 

Plaintiff’s other claims fare less well. I see no actionable allegations against defendants 

Klein and Rossi, although both are named in the caption of the complaint. And plaintiff’s 

allegations against the physician, Rosen, are too vague to give rise to a federal claim. Plaintiff 

appears to allege that Rosen helped the Roseville Police Department in some way by making 

some unauthorized alteration to medical records. Id. at 11. This vague allegation is insufficient 

to sustain a claim and, moreover, it does not appear related to the excessive force claims against 

the officer defendants. 

Plaintiff may either proceed only with the claims identified as cognizable in this order, or 

he may delay serving any defendant and file another amended complaint. He is advised that the 

amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 

896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended complaint should be titled “Second 

Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may either indicate his intent 

to proceed only with his cognizable Fourth Amendment claims or he should file an amended 

complaint. If he fails to do either, I may recommend this action be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute.

2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order. 

Case 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP Document 16 Filed 03/11/24 Page 3 of 4
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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP Document 16 Filed 03/11/24 Page 4 of 4