Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04730/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04730-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corral
Defendant
Foster
Defendant
Paul Garcia
Plaintiff
Tran
Defendant
Wolf
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PAUL GARCIA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CORRAL, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 18-cv-04730-PJH 

ORDER OF SERVICE 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners 

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim 

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) 

(citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed 

Case 4:18-cv-04730-PJH Document 6 Filed 09/21/18 Page 1 of 7
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] 

to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme 

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff states that he was unlawfully arrested by police who used excessive force. 

An allegation of the use of excessive force by a law enforcement officer in 

effectuating an arrest states a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Rutherford v. City 

of Berkeley, 780 F.2d 1444, 1447 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled on other grounds by Graham 

v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989); see also Byrd v. Phoenix Police Dep’t, 885 F.3d 639, 

641-42 (9th Cir. 2018) (pro se allegations that police officers “beat the crap out of” plaintiff 

and caused him severe injury enough to support a legally cognizable claim under § 

1983). Excessive force claims which arise in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop 

of a free citizen are 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). 

A claim of unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 for violation of the Fourth 

Case 4:18-cv-04730-PJH Document 6 Filed 09/21/18 Page 2 of 7
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure if the complaint 

alleges that the arrest was without probable cause or other justification. See Pierson v. 

Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 555-558 (1967); Yousefian v. City of Glendale, 779 F.3d 1010, 1014 

n.1. (9th Cir. 2015) (absence of probable cause is essential element of § 1983 false 

arrest claim). 

Plaintiff states that he was sitting on the porch steps of a friend’s house when 

Police Officer Corral arrived and angrily demanded to see his identification. Plaintiff 

stated he was doing nothing wrong and did not need to show his identification. Plaintiff 

walked away about a half block when several other police officers arrived. Plaintiff 

alleges that Police Officers Foster and Tran assaulted him and used a taser injuring him. 

At that point Police Officer Wolf arrived and began assaulting plaintiff. Plaintiff states that 

all charges were later dismissed, and he is incarcerated on unrelated charges. He seeks 

money damages. Liberally construed, plaintiff’s claim of unlawful arrest is sufficient to 

proceed against all defendants and his claim of excessive force is sufficient to proceed 

against Foster, Tran and Wolf. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, 

without prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint with attachments and copies of this 

order on the following defendants who are San Jose Police Officers: Officer Corral 

#3996, Officer Foster #3331, Officer Wolf #4282 and Officer Tran #3084. 

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows: 

 a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, defendants shall file a 

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported 

by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports 

stemming from the events at issue. If defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be 

resolved by summary judgment, she shall so inform the court prior to the date her 

summary judgment motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be promptly served 

Case 4:18-cv-04730-PJH Document 6 Filed 09/21/18 Page 3 of 7
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

on the plaintiff. 

 b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendants shall also serve, 

on a separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 

F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 

n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand

and Wyatt notices must be given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to 

dismiss for nonexhaustion is filed, not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement). 

 c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with 

the court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion 

was served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed "NOTICE -- 

WARNING," which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-

954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 

1988). 

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff failed to 

exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), 

plaintiff should take note of the attached page headed "NOTICE -- WARNING 

(EXHAUSTION)," which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 

1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 d. If defendant wishes to file a reply brief, he shall do so no later than 

fifteen days after the opposition is served upon her. 

 e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is 

due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date. 

3. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on defendant, or 

defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the 

document to defendants or defendants' counsel. 

4. 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) is 

required before the parties may conduct discovery. 

Case 4:18-cv-04730-PJH Document 6 Filed 09/21/18 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

info

“No

fas

pu

Da

5. It is

ormed of a

otice of Cha

shion. Failu

rsuant to F

IT IS S

ated: Septe

s plaintiff's r

ny change 

ange of Ad

ure to do so

ederal Rule

SO ORDER

mber 21, 20

responsibilit

of address 

dress.” He

o may resul

e of Civil Pr

RED. 

018 

5

ty to prosec

by filing a s

e also must 

lt in the dism

rocedure 41

cute this ca

separate pa

comply wit

missal of th

1(b). 

PH

Un

ase. Plainti

aper with th

th the court

his action fo

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

ff must kee

he clerk hea

t's orders in

or failure to 

HAMILTON

s District Ju

ep the court

aded 

n a timely 

prosecute 

N

udge 

t

Case 4:18-cv-04730-PJH Document 6 Filed 09/21/18 Page 5 of 7
6 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) 

 If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking 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 defendant’s 

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. 

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION) 

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, they are 

seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case. 

You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show 

that you did exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of 

declarations (statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, 

that is, documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and 

why they are authentic, or other sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or 

depositions. If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust and it 

is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

Case 4:18-cv-04730-PJH Document 6 Filed 09/21/18 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

PA

C

Dis

pla

dep

rec

Pau

Co

P.O

Sol

Da

AUL GARC

v. 

ORRAL, et 

I, the un

strict Court, 

That on

acing said co

positing said

ceptacle loca

ul Garcia ID

rrectional Tr

O. Box 705 

ledad, CA 9

ated: Septem

CIA, 

Plaintiff, 

al., 

Defendants

ndersigned, 

Northern Di

n September 

opy(ies) in a 

d envelope in

ated in the Cl

D: BC-9841 

raining Faci

3960 

mber 21, 2018

UNITED

NORTHER

s. 

hereby certi

istrict of Cal

21, 2018, I 

postage paid

n the U.S. M

lerk's office.

lity

8

7

D STATES D

RN DISTRIC

fy that I am 

lifornia. 

SERVED a 

d envelope a

Mail, or by pla

.

Su

Cl

By

K

H

DISTRICT C

CT OF CALI

Case No. 1

CERTIFIC

an employe

true and cor

addressed to 

acing said co

usan Y. Soon

lerk, United

y:_________

Kelly Collins,

Honorable PH

COURT 

IFORNIA 

18-cv-04730

CATE OF S

ee in the Offi

rrect copy(ie

the person(s

opy(ies) into

ng 

d States Distr

___________

, Deputy Cle

HYLLIS J. H

0-PJH 

SERVICE 

ice of the Cl

es) of the atta

s) hereinafte

o an inter-off

rict Court 

_______ 

erk to the 

HAMILTON

erk, U.S. 

ached, by 

er listed, by 

ffice delivery

N

y

Case 4:18-cv-04730-PJH Document 6 Filed 09/21/18 Page 7 of 7