Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00715/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00715-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Fresno
Defendant
Fresno Police Department
Defendant
James Greathouse
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES GREATHOUSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00715-JLT-BAM

SCREENING ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 9)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff James Greathouse is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 3, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and 

granted him leave to amend. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on November 6, 

2024, is currently before the Court for screening. (Doc. 9.)

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 

dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

Case 1:24-cv-00715-JLT-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/08/24 Page 1 of 7
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

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 

true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 

572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 

sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 

Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 

is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 

standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff brings this action against the City of Fresno and the Fresno Police Department. 

Plaintiff asserts that this action arises from him being falsely arrested. (Doc. 9 at 1.) In relevant 

part, he alleges as follows:

The young officer who walk to the female officer it escalated the situation between 

me and the young officer. This isn’t just about me, its about every black man every 

black woman who would experience something similar who had been mistreated 

misjudged or worse this isn’t about me James Greathouse it’s a symbol of the 

injustice that to many had experienced a visual reminder of how deep-rooted 

prejudice and assumptions could tear the fabric of society and in the midst of it all 

I would stand tall calm and unshaken even as the people around me seeded to spiral 

into anger. 

(Id. at 1) (unedited text).

Plaintiff also alleges: 

With the humiliation I was enduring the pain of being arrested for no other reason 

other than to color of my skin and being assaulted by a police officer for no reason 

other than the color of my skin and the frustration that simmered beneath the surface 

this not just about me its about the countless men and women who had worse 

outcomes. Its not just a mistake. All they could say to me, that this matter will not 

be without an investigation. How many investigations get swept under the carpet.

(Doc. 9 at 1-2) (unedited text).

Plaintiff further alleges:

It wouldn’t matter to the officer’s weather or not I was saying all the seen that I was 

Case 1:24-cv-00715-JLT-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/08/24 Page 2 of 7
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

a black man and assumed I was a threat. That’s al thy needed to justify that I am 

guilty. The officer believing in their badge believing that it gives them the authority 

to control any situation to make snap judgement without consequence. The officers 

need to face the reality of their actions. The damages were done and I was 

mistreated and misjudge or worse also this is about the system that allows this to 

keep happening this is about accountability.

(Doc. 9 at 2) (unedited text). 

Plaintiff requests judgment in the amount of five million dollars. (Id.)

III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and 

fails to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. Because he is proceeding pro 

se, Plaintiff will be granted a final opportunity to amend his complaint to the extent that he can 

do so in good faith. To assist Plaintiff, the Court provides the pleading and legal standards that 

appear relevant to his claims.

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed 

factual allegations are not required, but “[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 (citation 

omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 

127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; 

see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557.

Although Plaintiff's amended complaint is short, it is not a plain statement of his claims. 

The amended complaint does not include basic factual allegations regarding what happened, when 

it happened, or who was involved. Bare assertions that Plaintiff was “falsely arrested” and 

“assaulted” are not sufficient. Plaintiff’s complaint must contain sufficient factual detail for the 

Court to reasonably infer that the named plaintiffs are liable for the alleged misconduct. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not provide any factual allegations concerning the 

circumstances or his arrest or the alleged assault. If Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, he 

Case 1:24-cv-00715-JLT-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/08/24 Page 3 of 7
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

must clearly state what happened, when it happened, and who was involved. 

B. Monell Liability

Plaintiff names the Fresno Police Department and the City of Fresno as defendants, but 

does not identify any actions either entity took to violate his rights. Recent Ninth Circuit 

authority makes clear that “both California municipalities and police departments are ‘persons’ 

amenable to suit under § 1983.” Est. of Debbs v. County of Sacramento, No. 2:20-cv-01153-TLNDB, 2023 WL 4108320, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2023) (quoting Duarte v. City of Stockton, 60 

F.4th 566, 568 (9th Cir. 2023)). “Bringing a section 1983 claim against a municipal police 

department is essentially bringing the claim against the municipality.” Robertson v. Merced 

County, No. 1:24-CV-00009-BAM (PC), 2024 WL 3091166, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2024)

(citing Annan-Yartey v. Honolulu Police Dep’t, 351 F. App’x 243, 246 (9th Cir. 2009)). 

Municipalities “cannot be held liable [for the actions of their employees] under § 1983 on 

a respondeat superior theory.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 591 

(1978). Instead, the constitutional injury must occur during the execution of an official “policy or 

custom.” Id. at 694. “A plaintiff may assert Monell liability based on: (1) an official policy; (2) a 

‘longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local 

government entity’; (3) the act of an ‘official whose acts fairly represent official policy such that 

the challenged action constituted official policy’; or (4) where “an official with final policymaking authority ‘delegated that authority to, or ratified the decision of, a subordinate.’” 

Bustamante v. County of Shasta, No. 2:23-cv-01552-TLN-DMC, 2024 WL 3673529, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Aug. 6, 2024) (quoting Price v. Sery, 513 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 2008)). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not allege any official policy, practice, or custom of 

either the police department or the city, nor does it allege delegation or ratification by an official 

with final policy-making authority sufficient to support Monell liability. 

C. Fourth Amendment

1. False Arrest

Plaintiff alleges that this case arises from his false arrest. A claim for unlawful arrest is 

cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, provided “the arrest was 

Case 1:24-cv-00715-JLT-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/08/24 Page 4 of 7
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

without probable cause or other justification.” Dubner v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 

959, 964 (9th Cir. 2001). To state a claim under § 1983 for false arrest and imprisonment, 

however, a plaintiff must allege facts “to demonstrate that there was no probable cause to arrest 

him.” See Cabrera v. City of Huntingdon Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing George 

v. City of Long Beach, 973 F.2d 706, 710 (9th Cir. 1992)). Probable cause “exists when under the 

totality of the circumstances known to the arresting officers, a prudent person would have 

concluded that there was a fair probability that [the person arrested] had committed a crime.” 

Barlow v. Ground, 943 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Smith, 790 F.2d 

789, 792 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that he was “falsely arrested” for no other reason than the color of 

his skin. (Doc. 9 at 2.) This conclusory allegation is not sufficient to state a cognizable claim for 

false arrest. Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to allege any facts concerning the circumstances 

of his arrest, including when he was arrested, where he was arrested, who was involved, and what 

happened. 

2. Excessive Force

Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by a police officer. (Doc. 9 at 2.) A claim of 

excessive force in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop implicates the Fourth Amendment 

right to be free from “unreasonable ... seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV; see Graham v. Connor, 

490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989). “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.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 (citations omitted). Whether a law 

enforcement officer’s use of force was “objectively reasonable” depends upon the totality of the 

facts and circumstances confronting him. Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 701 (9th Cir.) (en 

banc) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 397), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005).

A court must “first assess the quantum of force used to arrest the plaintiff by considering 

the type and amount of force inflicted.” Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Second, a court balances the 

Case 1:24-cv-00715-JLT-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/08/24 Page 5 of 7
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

government’s countervailing interests. This involves considering “the severity of the crime at 

issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and 

whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Graham, 490 U.S. 

at 396. Using these factors, a court must determine “whether the force employed was greater than 

is reasonable under the circumstances.” Drummond, 343 F.3d at 1058.

Here, Plaintiff fails to allege the circumstances surrounding the alleged use of force, 

including when it happened, where it happened, who was involved, and what happened. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint includes only a conclusory assertion that he was “assaulted,” but 

does not contain sufficient factual detail for the Court to reasonably infer that the named plaintiffs 

are liable for the alleged misconduct. 

D. State Law Claim

Plaintiff may be attempting to assert a state law claim for assault. Under 28 U.S.C. § 

1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original jurisdiction, the “district courts 

shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action 

within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 

III of the United States Constitution,” except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). The Supreme 

Court has stated that “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims should 

be dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). 

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must 

first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As Plaintiff has not 

stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, the Court will not screen any purported 

state law claim.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and 

fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will grant 

Plaintiff a final opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the identified deficiencies to the 

extent he is able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

Case 1:24-cv-00715-JLT-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/08/24 Page 6 of 7
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

7

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise 

a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 

claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 

“buckshot” complaints).

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 

Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order (or file a notice of 

voluntary dismissal); and

3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 

Court will recommend dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court order and for failure to 

state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00715-JLT-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/08/24 Page 7 of 7