From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Humes v. Sacramento Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 28, 2018
No. 18-cv-0946 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2018)

Opinion

No. 18-cv-0946 CKD P

06-28-2018

JON HUMES, Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff is a Sacramento County Jail prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 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. Since plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his 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).

Plaintiff claims his efforts to submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action have been thwarted by Sacramento County Jail staff. Plaintiff currently has 39 cases pending in this court and 7 before the undersigned. Rather than order a completed application to be filed in this case, the court accepts the application to proceed in forma pauperis filed in 2:18-cv-0725 AC (ECF No. 4) for purposes of this action.

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.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than "naked assertions," "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

In his complaint, plaintiff sues Sacramento County for what plaintiff alleges are several incidents of false arrest, some of which plaintiff alleges involved the use of excessive force. In Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Soc. Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) the Supreme Court found that municipalities may be sued for damages under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. However, municipal liability cannot be "premised on the mere fact that the municipality employed the offending official." City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 810 (1985). Instead, municipal liability can only be imposed for "injuries inflicted pursuant to a 'policy or custom.' Id. quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 695. Plaintiff fails to allege any facts suggesting he suffered any injury as the result of a policy or custom of Sacramento County, rather than as a result of the actions of employees.

Plaintiff asserts that on various occasions his Constitutional rights were violated by his being arrested in his home without the arresting officer first obtaining a warrant. Plaintiff also asserts these arrests were carried out pursuant to Sacramento County policy. However, it is well settled that persons can be arrested in their home without a warrant if "exigent circumstances" exist, see Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 n.25 (1980), and plaintiff fails to point to any facts suggesting it was the policy of Sacramento County to conduct arrests that violate the Fourth Amendment in any respect. --------

For these reasons, plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.

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 his 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.

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

1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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 Sacramento County Sheriff 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." Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Dated: June 28, 2018

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1
hume0946.14


Summaries of

Humes v. Sacramento Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 28, 2018
No. 18-cv-0946 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2018)
Case details for

Humes v. Sacramento Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:JON HUMES, Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 28, 2018

Citations

No. 18-cv-0946 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2018)