UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
ANTHONY L. CAVALLERO, Case No. 1:20-cv-00108-BLW Plaintiff, INITIAL REVIEW ORDER vs. BY SCREENING JUDGE
STATE OF IDAHO,
Defendant.
The Complaint of Plaintiff Anthony L. Cavallero was conditionally filed by the Clerk of Court due to his status as a prisoner and pauper. (Dkts. 3, 1.) A “conditional filing” means that Plaintiff must obtain authorization from the Court to proceed. All prisoner and pauper complaints seeking relief against a government entity or official must be screened by the Court to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 & 1915A. The Court must dismiss any claims that state a frivolous or malicious claim, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). After reviewing the Complaint, the Court has determined that Plaintiff will be required to amend his Complaint. REVIEW OF COMPLAINT 1. Factual Allegations Plaintiff alleges that, on an unspecified date, the following occurred:
I was arrested for assault on an officer and taken to court by Ada County Sheriff Deputies. During my transport from IMSI to the courthouse, the deputies used swivel handcuff[s] with a box. While putting them on me the Deputies broke my wrist; now a bone sticks out and hurts all the time.
(Dkt. 3, p. 2.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $1 million. As context for Plaintiff’s claim, a review of the Idaho Department of Correction website shows that Plaintiff currently is serving a sentence for “assault/battery on certain personnel” in Ada County Criminal Case No. CR13-16900, with a satisfaction date of September 30, 2021. Given the case number (which indicates the year of filing), this source seems to indicate that Plaintiff’s at-issue transportation to court for proceedings would have occurred within 2013 or a few years thereafter. If this information is incorrect, Plaintiff can correct it in the amended complaint. 2. Standard of Law A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint fails to state a claim for relief under Rule 8 if the factual assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are insufficient for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff is required to state facts, and not just legal theories, in a complaint. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In Iqbal, the Court made clear that “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678. In other words, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the- defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the facts pleaded are “merely consistent with a defendant’s liability,” the complaint has not stated a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). Pro se complaints must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights statute. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person
acting under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). For Plaintiff’s purposes, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is an implementing statute that makes it possible to bring a cause of action under the amendments to the United States Constitution. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects prisoners who
are convicted felons against cruel and unusual punishment. To state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for excessive force, Plaintiff must state facts showing that he was “incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm,” or that he was deprived of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” as a result of Defendants’ actions. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). The kind of force that violates the Eighth Amendment is defined as “gratuitous or disproportionate force that has no object but to inflict pain.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986). Under the Eighth Amendment, force is deemed legitimate in a custodial setting as long as it is applied “in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline [and not] maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). Five factors set forth in Hudson are considered in determining whether force is excessive under the circumstances: “(1) the extent of injury suffered by an inmate; (2) the need for application of force; (3) the relationship between that need and the amount of force used; (4) the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials; and (5) any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003). 3. Discussion of Claims against the State of Idaho The Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal court from entertaining a civil rights lawsuit brought by a citizen against a state, unless that state waives its sovereign immunity. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1890). The Supreme Court has consistently applied the Eleventh Amendment’s jurisdictional bar to states and state entities “regardless of the nature of the relief sought.” See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). Therefore, Plaintiff cannot sue the state in this
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 4
federal action. Instead, Plaintiff may sue those state actors responsible for the alleged civil rights violations. 4. Discussion of Statute of Limitations Issue A. Standards of Law The statute of limitations period for filing a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
ANTHONY L. CAVALLERO, Case No. 1:20-cv-00108-BLW Plaintiff, INITIAL REVIEW ORDER vs. BY SCREENING JUDGE
STATE OF IDAHO,
Defendant.
The Complaint of Plaintiff Anthony L. Cavallero was conditionally filed by the Clerk of Court due to his status as a prisoner and pauper. (Dkts. 3, 1.) A “conditional filing” means that Plaintiff must obtain authorization from the Court to proceed. All prisoner and pauper complaints seeking relief against a government entity or official must be screened by the Court to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 & 1915A. The Court must dismiss any claims that state a frivolous or malicious claim, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). After reviewing the Complaint, the Court has determined that Plaintiff will be required to amend his Complaint. REVIEW OF COMPLAINT 1. Factual Allegations Plaintiff alleges that, on an unspecified date, the following occurred:
I was arrested for assault on an officer and taken to court by Ada County Sheriff Deputies. During my transport from IMSI to the courthouse, the deputies used swivel handcuff[s] with a box. While putting them on me the Deputies broke my wrist; now a bone sticks out and hurts all the time.
(Dkt. 3, p. 2.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $1 million. As context for Plaintiff’s claim, a review of the Idaho Department of Correction website shows that Plaintiff currently is serving a sentence for “assault/battery on certain personnel” in Ada County Criminal Case No. CR13-16900, with a satisfaction date of September 30, 2021. Given the case number (which indicates the year of filing), this source seems to indicate that Plaintiff’s at-issue transportation to court for proceedings would have occurred within 2013 or a few years thereafter. If this information is incorrect, Plaintiff can correct it in the amended complaint. 2. Standard of Law A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint fails to state a claim for relief under Rule 8 if the factual assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are insufficient for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff is required to state facts, and not just legal theories, in a complaint. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In Iqbal, the Court made clear that “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678. In other words, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the- defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the facts pleaded are “merely consistent with a defendant’s liability,” the complaint has not stated a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). Pro se complaints must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights statute. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person
acting under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). For Plaintiff’s purposes, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is an implementing statute that makes it possible to bring a cause of action under the amendments to the United States Constitution. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects prisoners who
are convicted felons against cruel and unusual punishment. To state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for excessive force, Plaintiff must state facts showing that he was “incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm,” or that he was deprived of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” as a result of Defendants’ actions. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). The kind of force that violates the Eighth Amendment is defined as “gratuitous or disproportionate force that has no object but to inflict pain.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986). Under the Eighth Amendment, force is deemed legitimate in a custodial setting as long as it is applied “in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline [and not] maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). Five factors set forth in Hudson are considered in determining whether force is excessive under the circumstances: “(1) the extent of injury suffered by an inmate; (2) the need for application of force; (3) the relationship between that need and the amount of force used; (4) the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials; and (5) any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003). 3. Discussion of Claims against the State of Idaho The Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal court from entertaining a civil rights lawsuit brought by a citizen against a state, unless that state waives its sovereign immunity. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1890). The Supreme Court has consistently applied the Eleventh Amendment’s jurisdictional bar to states and state entities “regardless of the nature of the relief sought.” See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). Therefore, Plaintiff cannot sue the state in this
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 4
federal action. Instead, Plaintiff may sue those state actors responsible for the alleged civil rights violations. 4. Discussion of Statute of Limitations Issue A. Standards of Law The statute of limitations period for filing a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is determined by the statute of limitations period for personal injuries in the state where the claim arose. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (later overruled only as to claims brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, not applicable here). Idaho Code § 5-219 provides for a two-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice, personal injury, and wrongful death actions. Federal civil nights actions arising in Idaho are governed by this two-year statute of limitations. Although the Court relies upon the state statute of limitations to determine the time for filing a claim, the Court uses federal law to determine when a claim accrues. Elliott v. City of Union City, 25 F.3d 800, 801-02 (9th Cir. 1994). The Ninth Circuit has determined that a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows, or should know, of the injury that is the basis of the cause of action. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir. 1996). Under this “discovery rule,” the statute begins to run once a plaintiff knows of his injury and its cause. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1344 (9th Cir. 1986). A claim accrues upon awareness of an actual injury, “and not when the plaintiff suspects a legal wrong.” Lukovsky v. City and County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2008).
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 5
Under limited circumstances, untimely claims sometimes can be salvaged. State law governs equitable excuses related to the statute of limitations. The Idaho Supreme Court has determined that “[s]tatutes of limitation in Idaho are not tolled by judicial
construction but rather by the expressed language of the statute.” Wilhelm v. Frampton, 158 P.3d 310, 312 (Idaho 2007). Idaho statutorily tolls the limitations period for a person’s minority status or insanity. I.C. § 5-230. The theory of equitable estoppel is also available. While it “does not ‘extend’ a statute of limitation,” it works in a similar manner to prevent a party who has falsely
represented or concealed a material fact with actual or constructive knowledge of the truth “from pleading and utilizing the statute of limitations as a bar, although the time limit of the statue may have already run.” J.R. Simplot Co., v. Chemetics International, Inc., 887 P.2d 1039, 1041 (Idaho 1994). If claims are untimely filed and the untimeliness cannot be excused, they are
subject to dismissal for fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and are also subject to a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015). However, a complaint should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it is clear that the complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). B. Discussion
Because it appears that Plaintiff’s injuries occurred about 2013, and Plaintiff did not file his action until 2020, Plaintiff will be required to file an amended complaint showing that his original complaint was timely filed. That means he will have to specify the date on which his injury occurred. If Plaintiff has facts showing that he should be entitled to equitable tolling or equitable estoppel, he should present those to the Court in his amended complaint. If Plaintiff has no facts showing that his claim accrued in 2018 or no facts showing his untimely filing should be excused, he should file a notice of voluntary dismissal. Plaintiff also must name proper defendants—those individuals who personally participated in causing his injuries.
5. Instructions for Amendment If Plaintiff chooses to amend the Complaint, he must allege a sufficient causal connection between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation of his constitutional rights. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). “Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss” or to survive screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (a complaint is insufficient if it “tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” (punctuation altered)).
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 7
An amended complaint must contain all of Plaintiff’s allegations in a single pleading and cannot rely upon or incorporate by reference prior pleadings. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 15.1. An amended pleading completely replaces the original pleading.
A pleading is more understandable if it is organized by claim for relief and defendant, rather than asserting a broad set of facts at the beginning of a pleading that are unrelated to a list of defendants elsewhere in the pleading. For each claim against each defendant, Plaintiff must state the following (organized by each defendant): (1) the name of the person or entity Plaintiff claims to have caused the alleged deprivation of his
constitutional rights; (2) the facts showing that the defendant is a state actor (such as state employment or a state contract) or a private entity/private individual acting under color of state law; (3) the dates on which the conduct of the defendant allegedly took place; (4) the specific conduct or action Plaintiff alleges is unconstitutional; (5) the particular provision of the Constitution Plaintiff alleges has been violated; (6) facts alleging that the
elements of the violation are met; (7) the injury or damages Plaintiff personally suffered; and (8) the particular type of relief he is seeking from each defendant. The amended complaint must be legibly written or typed in its entirety, and it should be clearly designated as an “Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff’s name and address should be clearly printed at the top left corner of the first page of each document filed
with the Court. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he must also file a “Motion to Review the Amended Complaint.” If Plaintiff’s amendment does not comply with Rule 8, this case may be dismissed without further notice. See Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 2013) (“When a litigant knowingly and repeatedly refuses to conform his pleadings to the requirements of the Federal Rules, it is reasonable to conclude that the litigant
simply cannot state a claim.”). If Plaintiff fails to file anything further, his Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice (meaning it cannot be brought again) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
ORDER IT IS ORDERED: 1. If he desires to proceed, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint, together with a motion to review the amended complaint, within 60 days after entry of
this Order. 2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (contained in the Complaint) is DENIED without prejudice, but will be reconsidered by the Court if he states an actionable claim in the amended complaint and if he meets the standards for appointment of counsel.
3. Plaintiff is warned that, if he does not file an amended complaint within the time frame specified above, his entire case will be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may, in the alternative, file a notice of voluntary dismissal within 60 days after entry of this Order. SF DATED: April 22, 2020
Be “i Ly B. Lynn Winmill LRICT OSS US. District Court Judge
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 10