Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01544/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01544-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Osby Davis
Defendant
Joseph Kreins
Defendant
Jason Scott
Defendant
Eric M. Sydner
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

ERIC M. SYDNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JASON SCOTT,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-1544 JAM DAD PS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND 

MATERIALS FOR SERVICE, AND 

REQUIRING SERVICE BY UNITED 

STATES MARSHAL

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the 

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending 

before the court are plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915 and pro se complaint. The undersigned finds that plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application 

makes the showing required by the statute. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma 

pauperis will be granted.

With respect to plaintiff’s complaint, the complaint alleges that on January 11, 2014, 

defendant Jason Scott, an officer with the Vallejo Police Department, approached plaintiff and 

requested that plaintiff give Scott a sign plaintiff was holding that read “HONK IF YOU LOVE 

U.S. FREEDOM HONORABLY DISCHARGED U.S. NAVY VET.” (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) at 2-

3.) Plaintiff stated that defendant Scott had no right to take the sign and that plaintiff was 

exercising his right to free speech. Defendant Scott allegedly “slammed” plaintiff on “his car,” 

Case 2:14-cv-01544-JAM-DAD Document 3 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 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

2

handcuffed plaintiff, said “I am taking this damn sign and you can’t do anything about it,” placed 

the sign in his car, then removed plaintiff’s handcuffs and issued plaintiff a citation for blocking 

the sidewalk. (Id. at 3.) Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts a claim for violation of 

plaintiff’s right to “free speech” against defendant Scott, Joseph Kreins as Chief of the Vallejo 

Police Department and Osby Davis as the Mayor of the City of Vallejo, because Joseph Kreins 

and Osby Davis had “ultimate responsibility for the training and supervision of” defendant Scott. 

(Id.) 

However, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 

their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir.1979); 

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 

concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). In this regard, the complaint fails to 

state a claim against either Jospeh Kreins or Osby Davis.

With respect to the complaint’s allegations concerning defendant Scott, “the First 

Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police 

officers.” City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987). In order to establish a claim of 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that the official’s 

conduct would chill a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activity, and (2) 

that the official’s desire to chill the speech was a “but-for” cause of the official’s unlawful 

conduct. Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2013).

In light of the allegations found in the complaint, the court finds it appropriate to order 

service of the complaint on defendant Scott. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 30, 2014 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) 

is granted.

/////

Case 2:14-cv-01544-JAM-DAD Document 3 Filed 10/24/14 Page 2 of 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

3

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue process and to send plaintiff an 

instruction sheet for service of process by the United States Marshal, one USM-285 form, a 

summons form, and an endorsed copy of plaintiff’s complaint filed June 30, 2014. (Dkt. No. 1).

3. Within thirty (30) days after this order is served, plaintiff shall submit to the 

United States Marshal one properly completed USM-285 forms, one properly completed 

summons forms, and the number of copies of the endorsed complaint and of this order required 

by the United States Marshal; the required documents shall be submitted directly to the United 

States Marshal either by personal delivery or by mail to: United States Marshals Service, 501 I 

Street, Suite 5600, Sacramento, CA 95814 (tel. 916-930-2030).

4. Within ten (10) days after submitting the required materials to the United States 

Marshals Service, plaintiff shall file with this court a declaration stating the date on which she 

submitted the required documents to the United States Marshal. Failure to file the declaration in a 

timely manner may result in an order imposing appropriate sanctions.

5. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the necessary materials from plaintiff, 

the United States Marshal is directed to serve process on defendant Jason Scott without 

prepayment of costs.

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the United 

States Marshal.

Dated: October 24, 2014

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.pro se\sydner1544.ifp. serve.ord.docx

Case 2:14-cv-01544-JAM-DAD Document 3 Filed 10/24/14 Page 3 of 3