Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20091030_0014786.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-17 21:50:51
Document Index: 776368961

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 636', '§ 1914', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983']

| Dewitt v. Sacramento Police Department
DURAN D. DEWITT, PLAINTIFF,v.SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is currently confined at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center ("RCCC"), and is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with the court's September 4, 2009 order, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) & 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $17.33 will be assessed by this order. See 28 U.S.C. § 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 to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's trust account. These payments will be collected and 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
In his complaint, plaintiff has named the Sacramento Police Department and Deputy Vandusen as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that he fled on foot during a police pursuit, but as soon as "Hutch" a police K-9 caught up to him, he immediately surrendered. Plaintiff also alleges that he was already in handcuffs when another officer ordered his K-9 "Buck" to "get him." According to plaintiff, Buck went straight for plaintiff's neck, and since plaintiff's hands were handcuffed behind his back he could not protect himself from the dog attack. Plaintiff alleges that he passed out due to pain inflicted by the police dog in the attack and woke up at U.C. Davis Medical Center. Plaintiff claims that the defendants violated his right to be free from the excessive use of force in connection with his arrest. In terms of relief, plaintiff requests damages from the Sacramento Police Department. He also requests that defendant Vandusen be subject to a disciplinary hearing and be issued a formal reprimand. (Compl. at 3.)
I. Plaintiff's Claim Against the Sacramento Police Department
The court finds that plaintiff's complaint does not state a cognizable claim for relief against the Sacramento Police Department. Plaintiff is advised that a municipality is only subject to liability under § 1983 if its official policy, practice, or custom causes a constitutional violation. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978). A city or county may not be held vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under a theory of respondeat superior. See Bd. of County Comm'r's v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); Monell, 436 U.S. at 691. Here, plaintiff has not alleged that his injuries were caused by a Sacramento Police Department policy, practice, or custom. Accordingly, the court will not order service of plaintiff's complaint on this defendant.
II. Plaintiff's Claim Against Deputy Vandusen
The court finds that plaintiff's complaint appears to state a cognizable claim for relief against defendant Vandusen under the Fourth Amendment. If the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action against this defendant. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). However, the court will not order service of plaintiff's complaint on defendant Vandusen at this time. As noted above, in terms of relief, plaintiff requests only that defendant Vandusen be subject to a disciplinary hearing and receive a formal reprimand. Plaintiff is advised that the taking of a disciplinary action against the defendant is not a remedy available to plaintiff in this civil rights action. The court will, however, grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to re-state his claim against defendant Vandusen and clarify his request for relief. If, for example, plaintiff believes he is entitled to compensatory or punitive damages as a result of the alleged violation of his constitutional rights by the actions of defendant Vandusen, he should so state in a clear fashion in the space provided on the form complaint and indicate the specific amount in damages that he seeks from the defendant.
1. Plaintiff's October 6, 2009 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 6) is granted.
2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $17.33. All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to the Sheriff of Sacramento County filed concurrently herewith.