Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00100/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Botello
Defendant
City of Vallejo
Defendant
Sean Kenney
Defendant
Kent Tribble
Defendant
Vallejo Police Department
Defendant
Eric Garfield Williams
Plaintiff

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC GARFIELD WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0100 LKK EFB PS

vs.

SEAN KENNEY, et al.,

ORDER AND FINDINGS 

Defendants. AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, was referred to the undersigned by

Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On February 22, 2007, this court

granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, but

dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March

27, 2007. 

Plaintiff alleges that on July 15, 2006, he was stopped by Vallejo Police Officers Sean

Kenney, Kent Tribble, Cpl. Botello and other unidentified officers. Plaintiff alleges that the

named defendants used excessive force in handcuffing him and physically assaulted him. 

Plaintiff further alleges that the officers took him to a hospital where they continued to harass

and assault him. Plaintiff alleges that defendants “negligently, wrongfully and intentionally used

excessive force and/or incorrectly applied force resulting in severe ‘permanent’ physical and

Case 2:07-cv-00100-LKK-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/24/07 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

1

 The court notes that prior to its February 22, 2007, order granting plaintiff “ifp” status,

plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The court reviewed that complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and directed plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. 

2

mental injuries.” Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), at 10:7-9.1

 Plaintiff appears to bring

this excessive force claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See FAC, at 8:36-38. 

Pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-

21 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Rule 8 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth general rules of notice pleading in the federal courts. 

Rule 8(a)(2) provides that a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512

(2002). “Such a statement must simply ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Id. With these standards in mind, the court finds

that plaintiff has sufficiently plead a claim against individual defendants Sean Kenney, Kent

Tribble, and Cpl. Botello of the Vallejo Police Department. 

However, plaintiff also seeks to name as defendants the City of Vallejo and the Vallejo

Police Department. As explained in this court’s February 22, 2007, order, there is no respondeat

superior liability under § 1983. Accordingly, municipalities (and their departments) may be sued

under § 1983 only upon a showing that an official policy or custom caused the constitutional

tort. See Mt Healthy City School Dist Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977);

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

351 F.3d 372, 393 (9th Cir. 2003) (granting summary judgment to city and city police

department under Monell). “A local government entity cannot be held liable under § 1983 unless

the plaintiff alleges that the action inflicting injury flowed from either an explicitly adopted or a

tacitly authorized [governmental] policy.” Ortez v. Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 811 (9th

Cir. 1996) (citation and quotations omitted) (alteration in original). “[L]ocal governments, like

any other § 1983 ‘person,’ . . . may be sued for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to

Case 2:07-cv-00100-LKK-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/24/07 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

3

governmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the

body’s official decisionmaking channels.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91.

In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff has failed to allege the existence of any

official policy or custom on the part of the City of Vallejo or its police department in connection

with his excessive force claims. Plaintiff does make allege that these defendants have an

obligation to “exercise reasonable care in the evaluation, hiring, employment, training,

supervision, and retention of personnel that would be permitted to act as police officers and use

force on suspects and other’s [sic] with whom they may come into contact with.” SAC, at 10:17-

25. However, he does not allege that either defendant failed to adequately train or supervise the

individually named officers. Municipalities may be sued under § 1983 for inadequate training

and supervision “only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights

of persons with whom the police come into contact.” City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S.

378, 388 (1989). Here, plaintiff has made no allegation that the Vallejo defendants failed to

adequately train its police officers or that such failure amounted to deliberate indifference to his

constitutional rights. Accordingly, he has failed to state a claim against these defendants under §

1983, and the undersigned recommends that defendants City of Vallejo and the Vallejo Police

Department be dismissed from this action. 

However, the court finds that the allegations in the second amended complaint are

sufficient at least to state cognizable claims against defendants Sean Kenney, Kent Tribble, and

Cpl. Botello. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. With this order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to issue summons forthwith pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, one summons, a

copy of the complaint, a form for consent to a magistrate judge, and this court’s status order. 

////

Case 2:07-cv-00100-LKK-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/24/07 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

4

3. Plaintiff is directed to supply the U.S. Marshal, within 15 days from the date this order

is filed, all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process. Plaintiff is advised

that the court anticipates that, to effect service, the U.S. Marshal will require at least:

a. One completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant (defendants Sean Kenney,

Kent Tribble, and Cpl. Botello); 

c. A copy of the endorsed filed complaint for each defendant, with an extra copy

for the U.S. Marshal; and

d. A copy of this court’s status order for each defendant. 

4. The U.S. Marshal is directed to serve process and a copy of this court’s status order,

within ninety days of receipt of the required information from plaintiff, without prepayment of

costs. In the event the U.S. Marshal is unable, for any reason whatsoever, timely to effectuate

service on any defendant, the Marshal is directed to report that fact, and the reasons for it, to the

undersigned.

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal,

501 “I” Street, Sacramento, Ca., 95814, Tel. No. (916) 930-2030. 

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants City of Vallejo and the Vallejo Police

Department be dismissed from this action. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10)

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst,

Case 2:07-cv-00100-LKK-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/24/07 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

5

951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 23, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00100-LKK-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/24/07 Page 5 of 5