Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02863/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02863-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
El Dorado County Jail
Defendant
Thomas Franklin Hammitt
Plaintiff
Jeff Leikauf
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS FRANKLIN HAMMITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

EL DORADO COUNTY JAIL, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-2863-JDP (P)

ORDER

Plaintiff Thomas Hammitt, a county inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 

action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, sues the El Dorado County Jail and Sheriff Jeff Leikauf. 

The complaint, as drafted, does not state a cognizable claim. I will grant plaintiff the opportunity 

to amend his complaint. 

Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

Case 2:24-cv-02863-JDP Document 7 Filed 12/20/24 Page 1 of 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

2

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Analysis

The complaint alleges that on August 30, 2024, plaintiff broke his toe when he exited a 

transport van. ECF No. 1 at 3, 9. He claims that the van had a “makeshift seat and restrained in 

leg & arm chains.” Id. at 3. 

It is not clear from the complaint whether plaintiff was a convicted prisoner or pretrial 

detainee at the time of the alleged incident. If he was a pretrial detainee at the time, his claim 

arises under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause; if he was already convicted, his 

claim arises under the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause. The Eighth 

Amendment prohibits excessive force in the form of “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” 

on a convicted prisoner. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). The Fourteenth 

Amendment’s protection for pretrial detainees is broader; prohibiting “excessive force that 

Case 2:24-cv-02863-JDP Document 7 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 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

3

amounts to punishment.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 397 (2015). “[A] pretrial 

detainee must show only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively 

unreasonable.” Id. at 396-97. Plaintiff’s allegations, however, fail to state a claim under either 

standard.

As an initial manner, plaintiff’s claims against Sheriff Leikauf are nonviable. There is no 

respondeat superior liability under section 1983, Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 

1989), and the complaint does not allege that the Sheriff was directly involved in or aware of 

plaintiff’s situation. 

As for plaintiff’s claims against the Jail, the complaint fails to allege a Monell claim. To 

state such a claim, the complaint must allege that (1) plaintiff was deprived of a constitutional 

right, (2) the City and/or Department has a policy, custom, or practice which amounted to 

deliberate indifference to that constitutional right; and (3) the policy, custom, or practice was the 

moving force behind the constitutional violation. See Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 

900-01 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)). “[A] 

local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or 

agents.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. Instead, a local government may be sued when an employee 

who committed a constitutional violation was “acting pursuant to an expressly adopted official 

policy, longstanding practice or custom, or as a final policymaker.” Thomas v. Cnty. of Riverside, 

763 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). The complaint makes no 

allegations that the Jail has a policy, custom, or practice that was the moving force behind 

plaintiff’s alleged constitutional violation.

Finally, “the Ninth Circuit has yet to find an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 

claim in the context of a prison guard’s failure to secure an inmate’s seatbelt during transport.” 

Thomas v. Rodriguez, No. 3:16-cv-02211-AJB-JMA, 2017 WL 3896738, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 

2017). 

I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint. If plaintiff decides to file an 

amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current one. See Lacey v. 

Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended 

Case 2:24-cv-02863-JDP Document 7 Filed 12/20/24 Page 3 of 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

4

complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. 

Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves 

any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need 

to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended 

complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 

If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to amend. 

3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 

complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 

result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 

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

5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02863-JDP Document 7 Filed 12/20/24 Page 4 of 4