Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01088/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01088-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ross Burrell
Defendant
Michael Henderson
Plaintiff
Richard Lee
Defendant

Document Text:

Case No. 16-cv-01088 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE 

REGARDING SUCH MOTION

1

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROSS BURRELL, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01088 RMW (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING 

DEFENDANT TO FILE DISPOSITIVE 

MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING 

SUCH MOTION 

Plaintiff, a California state pretrial detainee, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons stated below, the court dismisses two defendants and 

serves the remaining defendant.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in 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 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 

Case 3:16-cv-01088-VC Document 11 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 5
Case No. 16-cv-01088 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE 

REGARDING SUCH MOTION

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 California

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro 

se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was at the scene when defendant Officer Ross 

Burrell of the Emeryville Police Department had stopped someone named Terry Harris. 

Defendant requested identification from plaintiff and Harris. Plaintiff complied. Defendant then 

asked plaintiff to put his hands behind his back. Defendant removed all of plaintiff’s jewelry and 

checked plaintiff’s pockets. Defendant proceeded to unzip plaintiff’s pants and take off plaintiff’s 

jackets, and throw them “somewhere.” Plaintiff asked defendant why he was taking plaintiff’s 

clothes when plaintiff was not under arrest. Defendant responded by putting plaintiff’s hands 

tightly into handcuffs, injuring plaintiff’s wrists. Plaintiff alleges that Harris had been in 

possession of a stolen rain coat, but Harris was not searched. Eventually, plaintiff had all of his 

upper body clothing removed, and defendant forced plaintiff to lie on the ground with his pants to 

his ankles. Plaintiff claims that defendant then fondled plaintiff’s private parts, and penetrated 

plaintiff’s rear with some unknown object. Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated a cognizable 

claim that Officer Burrell violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable 

searches and seizures.

Plaintiff also names as defendants Supervisor Richard Lee and the Emeryville Police 

Department. However, plaintiff proffers no facts linking Supervisor Lee to any allegation. Absent 

vicarious liability, each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his 

Case 3:16-cv-01088-VC Document 11 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 5
Case No. 16-cv-01088 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE 

REGARDING SUCH MOTION

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 California

or her own misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). A supervisor may be liable 

under section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation 

or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the 

constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Starr 

v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011)). Plaintiff has not provided any facts sufficient to 

state a cognizable claim against Supervisor Lee. Accordingly, Supervisor Lee is dismissed with 

leave to amend if plaintiff believes in good faith that he can state a cognizable claim against him. 

Further, although local governments are “persons” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 where official policy or custom causes a constitutional tort, see Monell v. Dep’t of Social 

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978), in order to impose municipal liability under Section 1983 for a 

violation of constitutional rights resulting from governmental inaction or omission, a plaintiff must 

show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which he or she was deprived; 

(2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the 

plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the constitutional 

violation. See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Plaintiff has not done so. Accordingly, the Emeryville Police Department is dismissed with leave 

to amend if plaintiff believes in good faith that he can state a cognizable claim against it. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby orders as follows:

1. The clerk of the court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of 

Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint

and all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order to Officer Ross Burrell #364 at the Emeryville 

Police Department.

The clerk of the court shall also mail a courtesy copy of the complaint and a copy of this 

order to the Alameda County Counsel at 1221 Oak Street, Suite 450, Oakland CA 94612. The 

Case 3:16-cv-01088-VC Document 11 Filed 07/25/16 Page 3 of 5
Case No. 16-cv-01088 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE 

REGARDING SUCH MOTION

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 California

clerk shall mail a copy of this order to plaintiff.

2. Defendant is cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 

him to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. Pursuant 

to Rule 4, if defendant, after being notified of this action and asked by the court, on behalf of 

plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fails to do so, he will be required to bear the cost of 

such service unless good cause is shown for his failure to sign and return the waiver form. If 

service is waived, this action will proceed as if defendant had been served on the date that the 

waiver is filed and defendant will not be required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) 

days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent. Defendant is asked to read the 

statement set forth at the bottom of the waiver form that more completely describes the duties of 

the parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons. If service is waived after the date 

provided in the Notice but before defendant has been personally served, the Answer shall be due 

sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from 

the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 

3. No later than sixty (60) days from the filing date of this order, defendant shall file a 

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the cognizable claims in 

the complaint. 

Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate factual documentation 

and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant is

advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor qualified immunity found, if material facts 

are in dispute. If defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary 

judgment, he shall so inform the court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.

4. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the court and 

served on defendant no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date defendant’s motion is filed. 

Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. 

Case 3:16-cv-01088-VC Document 11 Filed 07/25/16 Page 4 of 5
Case No. 16-cv-01088 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE 

REGARDING SUCH MOTION

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment must come forward with 

evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim). 

5. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after plaintiff’s 

opposition is filed. 

6. 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. 

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

defendant’s counsel, by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant or defendant’s counsel.

8. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

No further court order is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

9. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 

and all parties 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

RONALD M. WHYTE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7/25/2016

Case 3:16-cv-01088-VC Document 11 Filed 07/25/16 Page 5 of 5