Gaines v. Greigore

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 22, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-06195
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JACOBI GAINES, Case No. 23-cv-06195-RMI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 9 v. TO AMEND

10 KARL GREIGORE, Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 14 Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 DISCUSSION 16 Standard of Review 17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 18 redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 19 U.S.C. 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 20 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 21 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 22 Further, it should be noted that pleadings submitted by pro se parties must be liberally construed. 23 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 25 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While specific facts are not necessary, the 26 statement needs to give the defendant fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds upon 27 which it rests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Although a plaintiff need not include 1 cause of action and state conclusions; rather a plaintiff must state factual allegations sufficient to 2 raise the entitlement to relief “above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 3 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 4 plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The Supreme Court recently explained this standard: “[w]hile 5 legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 6 allegations . . . [and] [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 7 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft 8 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 9 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 10 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 11 the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 12 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 13 Legal Claims 14 Plaintiff alleges that a deputy at the county jail assaulted him. It appears Plaintiff is a 15 pretrial detainee. 16 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a post-arraignment pretrial 17 detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 18 386, 395 n.10 (1989) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-39 (1979)). To prove an excessive 19 force claim under § 1983, a pretrial detainee must show only that the “force purposely or 20 knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 21 389, 397 (2015). “A court must make this determination from the perspective of a reasonable 22 officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of 23 hindsight.” Id. “A court (judge or jury) cannot apply this standard mechanically.” Id. “[O]bjective 24 reasonableness turns on the ‘facts and circumstances of each particular case.’” Id. (quoting 25 Graham, 490 U.S. at 396). 26 A non-exhaustive list of considerations that may bear on the reasonableness of the force 27 used include “the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used; 1 of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the 2 officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting.” Kingsley, 576 U.S. at 397. 3 Plaintiff does not state the date but alleges that Defendant Deputy Greigore escorted him 4 from his cell and had his hand on the back of Plaintiff’s neck and squeezed it tightly. (dkt. 1 at 2- 5 3). Plaintiff asked him to stop, but Defendant refused and then slammed Plaintiff against a wall 6 and then Defendant used his body to shove Plaintiff against the wall with his arms raised still 7 behind his back. Plaintiff’s arm then popped out of place. Plaintiff states that he was not resisting. 8 (id.) 9 Plaintiff presents a cognizable claim against Defendant. However, Plaintiff does not 10 provide a date when this occurred which will be needed for Defendant to properly respond. In 11 addition, Plaintiff continues with an earlier filed case, Gaines v. De La Fuente, Case No. 23-cv- 12 05386-RMI, where he alleges a different deputy assaulted him on February 9, 2021, at the same 13 jail. The instant complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff should file a brief amended 14 complaint and indicate when he was assaulted by Defendant Greigore and if it was related to the 15 incident in Gaines v. De La Fuente, Case No. 23-cv-05386-RMI, or if they were separate events. 16 CONCLUSION 17 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards 18 set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date 19 this order is filed, and it must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the 20 words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely 21 replaces the original complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See 22 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material 23 from the original Complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result 24 in dismissal of this case. 25 2. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 26 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk, headered “Notice of 27 Change of Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so 1 Procedure 41(b). 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: January 22, 2024 4 5 R@BERT M. ILLMAN 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16 & = 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28