Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02000/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02000-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry James Brookshire
Plaintiff
Carver
Defendant
Montano
Defendant
Sacramento County Main Jail
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

LARRY JAMES BROOKSHIRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIN 

JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-02000-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

THAT PLAINTIFF INDICATE HIS 

INTENT TO PROCEED ONLY WITH THE 

CLAIMS DEEMED COGNIZABLE IN 

THIS ORDER OR FILE ANOTHER 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURT 

ORDER

ECF Nos. 7 & 8

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Sacramento County Jail, alleges that defendants violated his 

Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to provide him with adequate medical care. ECF No. 7

at 3-9. After reviewing the complaint, I find that it states viable claims against defendants Jason 

Carver and Montano. It fails to state a viable claim against any other defendant. Plaintiff may 

either proceed only with his claims against Carver and Montano, or he may delay serving any 

defendant and amend his complaint again. Additionally, I will deny plaintiff’s motion for court 

order, ECF No. 8, for the reasons explained below.

Case 2:23-cv-02000-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 03/11/24 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

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 

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

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Id. 

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)).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that he arrived at the Sacramento County Jail in May 2023 after 

undergoing a procedure at the Mercy San Juan Hospital. ECF No. 7 at 3. He claims that 

defendants Carver and Montano were responsible for transporting him and, in doing so, used 

Case 2:23-cv-02000-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 03/11/24 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

restraints that exacerbated known injuries to his wrist and back. Id. Plaintiff has checked the 

form box characterizing these allegations as excessive force, id., but they can also be 

characterized as denial of adequate medical care. Regardless, they fall under the Fourteenth 

Amendment insofar as plaintiff appears to be a pre-trial detainee. See Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 

526 F.3d 1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008). These allegations are, for screening purposes, cognizable.

Plaintiff’s other claims fare less well. His other claims implicate an uncertain number of 

unidentified deputies and medical staff and allege that these individuals ignored his medical 

complaints. Given the uncertainty as to how many of these defendants are at issue and the fact 

that none have been mentioned in the caption, I conclude that none should be considered for 

service. Additionally, there is no apparent connection between these other, generalized claims for 

denial of care and the more specific claims against Carver and Montano. The only other 

defendants explicitly named are Sacramento County and “Adult Correctional Health”—an entity 

that may be responsible for medical care at the Sacramento County Jail. As to the county, there is 

no allegation that any policy or custom was responsible for the violation of plaintiff’s rights. 

And, as best I can tell, there is no allegation as to how Adult Correctional Health was involved in 

violating plaintiff’s rights. 

Plaintiff may proceed with the claims and defendants identified as viable in this order. Or

he may delay serving any defendant and file another amended complaint. He is advised that the 

amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 

896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended complaint should be titled “Second 

Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for court order that addresses alleged errors in the 

withdrawal of funds from his jail account. ECF No. 8. He claims that Sacramento County Jail 

has withdrawn funds at an incorrect rate and amount. Id. at 1-2. These allegations lie outside the 

scope of this complaint, and I decline to enter an order affecting the Sacramento County Jail’s 

internal operations. Plaintiff may, if he believes his rights are being violated, file another 

complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-02000-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 03/11/24 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

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may either indicate his intent 

to proceed only with the Fourteenth Amendment claims deemed cognizable in this order or he 

may delay serving any defendant and file another amended complaint. If he fails to do either, I 

may recommend this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for court order, ECF No. 8, is denied. 

3. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02000-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 03/11/24 Page 4 of 4