Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00476/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00476-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ball
Defendant
Roseville Police Department
Defendant
Sean K. Toole
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

SEAN K. TOOLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0476 CKD P

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 

§1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis 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 jail 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 

Case 2:16-cv-00476-CKD Document 6 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 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

2

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

II. Screening Standard

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

III. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges as follows: 

On September 4, 2015 at approximately 3:45 a.m. . . . I was 

walking to the store . . . when the police approached me asking 

questions, although I identified myself [by] name and not on parole 

or probation. They believed I was someone else. They used 

excessive force. I was hospitalized. They strangled me while 

kicking and punching me in the face, and I was beaten with the 

stick, all while face down on the ground. They separated [my] 

shoulder blade, broke my nose, cracked my ribs, and gave me a 

concussion.

(ECF No. 1 at 3.) 

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] ... subjects, or causes 

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the 

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution ... shall be liable to the party injured in an action at 

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

////

Case 2:16-cv-00476-CKD Document 6 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff names the Roseville Police Department as a defendant in this action. 

“Municipalities and other local government units ... [are] among those persons to whom § 1983 

applies.” Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. at 690. However, a municipal entity or its 

departments is liable under § 1983 only if plaintiff shows that his constitutional injury was caused 

by employees acting pursuant to the municipality’s policy or custom. See Villegas v. Gilroy 

Garlic Festival Association, 541 F.3d 950, 964 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690–

94). “[A]n act performed pursuant to a ‘custom’ that has not been formally approved by an 

appropriate decisionmaker may fairly subject a municipality to liability on the theory that the 

relevant practice is so widespread as to have the force of law.” Board of County Comm’rs. of 

Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997). Plaintiff has not alleged that any employee of 

the Roseville Police Department acted pursuant to a policy or custom that violates his federal 

constitutional rights. Thus he does not state a claim as to this defendant.

Plaintiff also names Deputy Ball of the Roseville Police Department as a defendant. 

However, plaintiff’s allegations do not show that Ball committed any constitutional violation or 

caused plaintiff harm. To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing each named 

defendant either exhibited some sort of “direct personal participation in the deprivation” or “set[ ] 

in motion a series of acts by others which the actor [knew] or reasonably should [have known] 

would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-744 

(9th Cir. 1978). There must be an actual causal link between the actions of the named defendants 

and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Services, 436 U.S. 658, 

691–92 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 

167 (9th Cir. 1980). Thus the complaint fails to state a claim against any defendant.

For these reasons, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The court will grant plaintiff 

one opportunity to file an amended complaint.

IV. 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, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 

Case 2:16-cv-00476-CKD Document 6 Filed 04/08/16 Page 3 of 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

4

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); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 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).

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. “[T]he unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth 

Amendment.” Whitely v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). “The Eighth Amendment’s 

prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition 

de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort repugnant to the 

conscience of mankind.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37-38 (2010) (quoting Hudson v. 

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)) (internal quotations omitted).

Not every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action. 

Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9) (quotation marks omitted). In 

determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, courts may evaluate the extent 

of the prisoner’s injury, the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and 

the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any 

efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7 (quotation 

marks and citations omitted). 

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. 

////

Case 2:16-cv-00476-CKD Document 6 Filed 04/08/16 Page 4 of 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

5

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) 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 Director of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number 

assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and 

two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with 

this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: April 8, 2016

2 / tool0476.14.new

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00476-CKD Document 6 Filed 04/08/16 Page 5 of 5