Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01876/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01876-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Estrada
Defendant
J. Flores
Defendant
Zaya S. Reed
Plaintiff
Ruiz
Defendant
Sorvetti
Defendant
Torres
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

ZAYA S. REED,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. FLORES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-01876-CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se with an action for a violation of her civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a 

declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), her request will be granted. 

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 

initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 

Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 

the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 

exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Case 2:23-cv-01876-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 11/28/23 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

I. Screening Requirement

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

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

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

II. Allegations in the Complaint

At all times relevant to the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff was in the Solano County 

Jail awaiting trial. On August 3, 2023, plaintiff tested positive for COVID-19 and was moved to 

a quarantine cell. Defendants Torres and Ruiz placed her in a quarantine cell that was covered in 

dried urine in retaliation for a grievance that she filed against them. When plaintiff walked to a 

table in order to speak to a sergeant about the filthy cell, defendant Flores grabbed her by her hair 

and started to pull her up a set of stairs. Defendant Flores also punched plaintiff in the left eye 

three times. Defendant Torres grabbed plaintiff’s wrist after plaintiff clung to the stair rail and 

defendant Torres continued to pull on her arm. After plaintiff was forcibly placed back in the 

dirty quarantine cell, defendant Flores punched plaintiff three more times. Plaintiff sustained 

injuries, including a black eye, as a result of this use of excessive force.

Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Sorvetti, who is a supervising sergeant at the jail, 

cancelled her two subsequent court dates and refused to allow her to appear for court via Zoom in 

order to cover-up her black eye. Defendant Sorvetti also denied plaintiff the ability to meet with 

her criminal defense attorney so that plaintiff’s injuries from the use of excessive force could not 

be documented. 

The complaint also states that defendant Estrada covered the work shift for defendant 

Torres on August 2, 2023. It is unclear to the court how this is connected to the events of August 

3, 2023. 

With respect to filing administrative grievances concerning these events, plaintiff alleges 

that all of her grievances are deemed unfounded and that there is no point in pursuing these 

Case 2:23-cv-01876-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 11/28/23 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

remedies.1 

III. Legal Standards

The civil rights statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 

in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 

Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must 

link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 

plaintiff's federal rights.

IV. Analysis

Having conducted the required screening with respect to plaintiff’s complaint, the court 

finds that plaintiff may proceed on the First Amendment retaliation claim against defendants 

Torres and Ruiz, the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim against defendants Flores and 

Torres2, the First Amendment access to court claim against defendant Sorvetti, and the Sixth 

Amendment denial of access to counsel claim against defendant Sorvetti.

With respect to defendant Estrada, the factual allegations do not amount to any claim upon 

which plaintiff may proceed. The complaint only alleges that defendant Estrada worked the 

August 2, 2023 shift for defendant Torres. Plaintiff does not describe how defendant Estrada was 

involved in any of the alleged constitutional violations that occurred on August 3, 2023 and 

thereafter. As a result of this deficiency, plaintiff has two options: 1) proceed immediately on the 

1 The court liberally construes these allegations for the purposes of screening as relevant to the 

chilling effect necessary to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim. See Rhodes v. 

Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 

2 The excessive force claim is proceeding under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the 

Eighth Amendment because plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the time of the events giving rise 

to the complaint. See Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (en 

banc).

Case 2:23-cv-01876-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 11/28/23 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

cognizable claims identified above; or 2) attempt to cure the deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint 

against defendant Estrada by filing an amended complaint. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (finding that district courts must afford pro se litigants an 

opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints). If plaintiff elects to proceed 

on the claims found cognizable in this screening order, the court will construe plaintiff’s election 

as consent to dismiss defendant Estrada pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

V. Leave to Amend

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. 

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, in her amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in 

specific terms how each named defendant is involved. 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. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of 

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

VI. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 

intended as legal advice. 

Some of the allegations in the complaint state claims for relief against the defendants, and 

some do not. You must decide if you want to (1) proceed immediately on the First Amendment 

Case 2:23-cv-01876-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 11/28/23 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

retaliation claim against defendants Torres and Ruiz, the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force 

claim against defendants Flores and Torres, the First Amendment access to court claim against 

defendant Sorvetti, and the Sixth Amendment denial of access to counsel claim against defendant 

Sorvetti; or, 2) amend the complaint to fix the problems identified in this order with respect to 

defendant Estrada. Once you decide, you must complete the attached Notice of Election form 

by checking only one box and returning it to the court. 

Once the court receives the Notice of Election, it will issue an order telling you what you 

need to do next. If you do not return this Notice, the court will order service of the complaint 

only on the claims found cognizable in this screening order and will dismiss defendant Estrada

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees 

shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Solano County Sheriff

filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on the First Amendment retaliation 

claim against defendants Torres and Ruiz; the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim 

against defendants Flores and Torres; the First Amendment access to court claim against 

defendant Sorvetti; and, the Sixth Amendment denial of access to counsel claim against defendant 

Sorvetti. In the alternative, plaintiff may choose to amend the complaint to fix the deficiencies 

identified in this order with respect to defendant Estrada. 

4. Plaintiff is granted 21 days within which to complete and return the attached form 

notifying the court whether she wants to proceed on the claims identified in this order or file an 

amended complaint in an attempt to cure the deficiencies in the original complaint. If plaintiff 

does not return the form, this action will proceed on the claim described above. 

5. If plaintiff elects to proceed only on the claims found cognizable in this screening 

order, the court will construe plaintiff’s election as consent to dismiss defendant Estrada pursuant 

to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 2:23-cv-01876-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 11/28/23 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

6. If plaintiff fails to return the attached Notice of Election within the time provided, the 

court will construe this failure as consent to dismiss the deficient claim against defendant Estrada

and proceed only on the cognizable claims identified above. 

Dated: November 28, 2023

12/reed1876.option

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01876-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 11/28/23 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZAYA S. REED,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. FLORES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-01876-CKD 

NOTICE OF ELECTION

Check one:

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on the First Amendment retaliation claim against 

defendants Torres and Ruiz; the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim against defendants 

Flores and Torres; the First Amendment access to court claim against defendant Sorvetti; and, the 

Sixth Amendment denial of access to counsel claim against defendant Sorvetti. By proceeding 

only on these cognizable claims, plaintiff understands that she is agreeing to voluntarily dismiss 

without prejudice defendant Estrada pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).

OR

_____ Plaintiff wants time to file an amended complaint.

DATED:

Plaintiff’s Signature

Case 2:23-cv-01876-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 11/28/23 Page 7 of 7