Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03946/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03946-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rene Arbizu
Defendant
Jesus Cortez
Defendant
Joseph Deras
Defendant
Geoffrey Guerin
Defendant
Jeremy Scott Johnson
Plaintiff
Justin Matsuhara
Defendant
Diana Mora
Defendant

Document Text:

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

JEREMY SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

GILROY P.D. OFFICERS 

JESUS CORTES; et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 09-3946 SI (pr)

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Jeremy Scott Johnson, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed this pro se civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining that he was subjected to excessive force

during his arrest by several Gilroy police officers. The complaint is now before the court for

review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

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).

Case 3:09-cv-03946-SI Document 5 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 4
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

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 claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force in the course of an arrest or

other seizure is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard. See Graham

v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394-95 (1989); Forrester v. City of San Diego, 25 F.3d 804, 806 (9th

Cir. 1994). "Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is 'reasonable'

under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of '"the nature and quality of the

intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests"' against the countervailing

governmental interests at stake." See Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 (citations omitted). 

Johnson complains of events that occurred during his arrest on March 27, 2009 by six

officers of the Gilroy police department: Jesus Cortez (badge # C 05116), Diana Mora (badge

# M01023), Geoffrey Guerin (badge # G04826), Joseph Deras (badge # D09696), Justin

Matsuhara (badge # M02192), and Rene Arbizu (badge # A08497). He alleges that when he

was arrested, “they cuffed me, then assualted (sic) me for 20 minutes, 30 second, in handcuffs.

Had broken ankle, and fatal infection in blood M.R.S.A. Was assaulted by all six officers stated

above. Broke right ankle further, no (sic) have bone spurs, dislocated left wrist, punched me,

bit of piece of tongue, numerous abrasions on face, chin, temples etc.” Complaint, p. 3 (errors

in source). Johnson states that he is in custody for threatening the officers and spitting on them.

Id. Liberally construed, the allegations of the complaint state a claim for relief under § 1983

against defendants Cortez, Mora, Guerin, Deras, Matsuhara, and Arbizu for the use of excessive

force in violation of Johnson’s Fourth Amendment rights.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

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

Mora, Guerin, Deras, Matsuhara, and Arbizu for the use of excessive force in violation of

Case 3:09-cv-03946-SI Document 5 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 4
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

Johnson’s Fourth Amendment rights. All other defendants and claims are dismissed.

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 the following six defendants who apparently work at the Gilroy police

department:

- Gilroy police officer Jesus Cortez (badge # C 05116)

- Gilroy police officer Diana Mora (badge # M01023)

- Gilroy police officer Geoffrey Guerin (badge # G04826)

- Gilroy police officer Joseph Deras (badge # D09696)

- Gilroy police officer Justin Matsuhara (badge # M02192)

- Gilroy police officer Rene Arbizu (badge # A08497). 

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

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than June 25, 2010, 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 July 30, 2010. 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).) 

Case 3:09-cv-03946-SI Document 5 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 4
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

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

served no later than August 13, 2010.

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.

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: April 2, 2010 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03946-SI Document 5 Filed 04/02/10 Page 4 of 4