Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01479/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01479-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fletcher
Defendant
Patterson
Defendant
Nathan Webster
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NATHAN WEBSTER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FLETCHER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-1479 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a former county inmate who filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 without a lawyer. He has requested leave to proceed without paying the full filing fee for 

this action, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration showing that he cannot 

afford to pay the entire filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners1 seeking relief against “a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The federal in forma pauperis statute also authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the action 

“(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) 

1

 Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time he filed his lawsuit but has since been released based upon 

his recent notice of change of address. ECF No. 9. 

Case 2:24-cv-01479-TLN-AC Document 10 Filed 11/19/24 Page 1 of 8
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 

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is 

based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or factual contentions that are baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989). 

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[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). A claim upon which the 

court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When 

considering whether a complaint states a claim, the court must accept the allegations as true, 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

II. Factual Allegations of the Complaint 

The complaint alleges that defendants Fletcher and Patterson violated plaintiff’s rights2

when Fletcher handcuffed him behind his back on the floor and Patterson tased him without 

provocation after he was already restrained. ECF No. 1 at 2. 

III. Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required 

After conducting the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court finds that 

2

 Plaintiff does not provide any information regarding his custody status at the time of the use of 

force. It is therefore unclear whether the Fourth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment governs the 

claims. The court will therefore screen the complaint using the less rigorous reasonableness 

standard. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he should be sure to include information 

regarding his custody status at the time of the use of force. 

Case 2:24-cv-01479-TLN-AC Document 10 Filed 11/19/24 Page 2 of 8
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 

plaintiff has adequately stated a valid claim for excessive force against defendant Patterson. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim 

However, the allegations in the complaint are not sufficient to state any claim for relief 

against Fletcher. There are no facts demonstrating that Fletcher used unreasonable or excessive 

force when handcuffing plaintiff or that he was aware that Patterson was going to tase plaintiff 

and allowed it to happen. It appears to the court that plaintiff may be able to allege facts to fix 

these problems. Therefore, plaintiff has the option of filing an amended complaint. 

V. Options from Which Plaintiff Must Choose 

Based on the court’s screening, plaintiff has a choice to make. After selecting an option 

from the two options listed below, plaintiff must return the attached Notice of Election form to 

the court within 21 days from the date of this order. 

The first option available to plaintiff is to proceed immediately against defendant 

Patterson on the excessive force claim. By choosing this option, plaintiff will be agreeing to 

voluntarily dismiss defendant Fletcher. The court will proceed to send plaintiff service 

documents to complete so that the complaint can be served on defendant Patterson. 

The second option available to plaintiff is to file an amended complaint to fix the 

problems described in Section IV against defendant Fletcher. If plaintiff chooses this 

option, the court will set a deadline in a subsequent order to give plaintiff time to file an 

amended complaint. 

VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for Party Proceeding Without a Lawyer 

 Some of the allegations in the complaint state claims against the defendants and some do 

not. You have stated a claim for excessive force against Patterson, but you have not alleged 

enough facts to show that Fletcher used excessive force against you or failed to protect you from 

Patterson. 

You have a choice to make. You may either (1) proceed immediately on your excessive 

force claim against Patterson and voluntarily dismiss all claims against Fletcher; or (2) try to 

amend the complaint. To decide whether to amend your complaint, the court has attached the 

relevant legal standards that may govern your claims for relief. See Attachment A. Pay 

Case 2:24-cv-01479-TLN-AC Document 10 Filed 11/19/24 Page 3 of 8
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 

particular attention to these standards if you choose to file an amended complaint. 

CONCLUSION 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 5, 7) are 

GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Fletcher do not state claims for which relief can be 

granted. 

3. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on his excessive force claim against 

defendant Patterson as set forth in Section III above, or to file an amended complaint. 

4. Within 21 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 

attached Notice of Election form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened 

complaint or whether he wants to file an amended complaint. 

5. If plaintiff does not return the form, the court will assume that he is choosing to 

proceed on the complaint as screened and will recommend dismissal without prejudice of all 

claims against defendant Fletcher. 

DATED: November 18, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-01479-TLN-AC Document 10 Filed 11/19/24 Page 4 of 8
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 

NATHAN WEBSTER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FLETCHER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-1479 AC P 

NOTICE OF ELECTION 

 Check one: 

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his excessive force claim against defendant 

Patterson without amending the complaint. Plaintiff understands that by choosing this 

option, the claims against defendant Fletcher will be voluntarily dismissed without 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). 

_____ Plaintiff wants time to file an amended complaint. 

DATED:_______________________ 

 

 Nathan Webster 

 Plaintiff pro se 

Case 2:24-cv-01479-TLN-AC Document 10 Filed 11/19/24 Page 5 of 8
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 

Attachment A 

This Attachment provides, for informational purposes only, the legal standards that may 

apply to your claims for relief. Pay particular attention to these standards if you choose to file an 

amended complaint. 

I. Legal Standards Governing Amended Complaints 

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the conditions 

about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 

423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Also, the complaint must specifically identify how each named 

defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). 

There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or 

connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official 

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 

268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 

 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

his amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an 

amended complaint replaces the prior complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) 

(citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 

2012). Therefore, in an amended complaint, every claim and every defendant must be included. 

II. Legal Standards Governing Substantive Claims for Relief 

A. Fourth Amendment: Excessive Force During Arrest and Failure to Protect 

Claims that law enforcement officers used excessive force during an arrest are analyzed 

under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 

386, 395 (1989). Thus, courts evaluating excessive force claims ask whether the officer’s actions 

were objectively reasonable based on the information the officer had when the force was used. 

Id. at 397. The right to make an arrest “necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of 

physical coercion or threat thereof,” thus not every use of physical force violates the Fourth 

Amendment. Graham, 490 at 396. “‘[P]olice officers have a duty to intercede when their fellow 

Case 2:24-cv-01479-TLN-AC Document 10 Filed 11/19/24 Page 6 of 8
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 

officers violate the constitutional rights of a suspect or other citizen.’ Importantly, however, 

officers can be held liable for failing to intercede only if they had an opportunity to intercede.” 

Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1289 (internal citations omitted). 

B. Fourteenth Amendment: Excessive Force Against a Pretrial Detainee and Failure to 

Protect 

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “a pretrial detainee must show only that the force 

purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. 

Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 396-97 (2015). “[O]bjective reasonableness turns on the ‘facts and 

circumstances of each particular case’” and must be determined “from the perspective of a 

reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 

vision of hindsight.” Id. at 397 (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)). 

Considerations such as the following may bear on the reasonableness 

or unreasonableness of the force used: the relationship between the 

need for the use of force and the amount of force used; the extent of 

the plaintiff’s injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to 

limit the amount of force; the severity of the security problem at 

issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the officer; and whether the 

plaintiff was actively resisting. 

Id. at 397. To state a claim for failure to protect under the Fourteenth Amendment, plaintiff must 

allege facts showing 

(i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the 

conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those 

conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious 

harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable measures to abate 

that risk, even though a reasonable official in the circumstances 

would have appreciated the high degree of risk involved—making 

the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and (iv) by not 

taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries. 

Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018). 

C. Eighth Amendment: Excessive Force Against a Convicted Prisoner and Failure to 

Protect 

The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from inflicting cruel and unusual 

punishment on inmates which has been defined as “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). “[W]henever prison officials stand accused 

Case 2:24-cv-01479-TLN-AC Document 10 Filed 11/19/24 Page 7 of 8
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 

of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the 

core judicial inquiry is... whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore 

discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 7 

(1992). The court’s inquiry into an excessive force claim focuses on the extent of the prisoner’s 

injury, the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of 

force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts made to 

temper the severity of a forceful response. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7 (1992) (quotation marks and 

citations omitted). While the absence of a serious injury is relevant to the Eighth Amendment 

inquiry, it does not end it. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. The malicious and sadistic use of force to 

cause harm always violates contemporary standards of decency in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. Whitley, 475 U.S. at 327. In order to be liable under the Eighth Amendment for 

failure to protect, a prison officials “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or 

safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). He must then fail to take reasonable 

measures to lessen the substantial risk of serious harm. Id. at 847. Negligent failure to protect an 

inmate from harm is not actionable under § 1983. Id. at 835. 

Case 2:24-cv-01479-TLN-AC Document 10 Filed 11/19/24 Page 8 of 8