1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JACOBI GAINES, Case No. 23-cv-06195-RMI
9 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE v. 10
11 KARL GREIGORE, Defendant. 12
13 14 Plaintiff, a detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 15 original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. 16 (dkt. 10). 17 LEGAL STANDARDS 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 21 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 23 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 24 Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement 27 need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it 1 claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide 2 the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 3 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do . . . [f]actual allegations must 4 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 5 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a 6 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has 7 recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly as such: “[w]hile legal 8 conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 9 allegations . . . [and] [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 10 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft 11 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 12 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 13 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 14 alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 15 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 16 DISCUSSION 17 Plaintiff alleges that a deputy at the county jail assaulted him. It appears Plaintiff is a 18 pretrial detainee. 19 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a post-arraignment pretrial 20 detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 21 386, 395 n.10 (1989) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-39 (1979)). To prove an excessive 22 force claim under § 1983, a pretrial detainee must show only that the “force purposely or 23 knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 24 389, 397 (2015). “A court must make this determination from the perspective of a reasonable 25 officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of 26 hindsight.” Id. “A court (judge or jury) cannot apply this standard mechanically.” Id. “[O]bjective 27 reasonableness turns on the ‘facts and circumstances of each particular case.’” Id. (quoting 1 A non-exhaustive list of considerations that may bear on the reasonableness of the force 2 used include “the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used; 3 the extent of the plaintiff's injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount 4 of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the 5 officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting.” Kingsley, 576 U.S. at 397. 6 Plaintiff alleges that on September 10, 2022, Defendant Deputy Greigore escorted him 7 from his cell and had his hand on the back of Plaintiff’s neck and squeezed it tightly. (dkt. 10 at 2). 8 Plaintiff asked him to stop, but Defendant refused and then slammed Plaintiff against a wall while 9 Plaintiff was handcuffed and then Defendant used his upper body to shove Plaintiff against the 10 wall with his arms raised still behind his back. Plaintiff’s arm then popped out of place. (Id.) 11 Plaintiff presents a cognizable claim against Defendant. 12 CONCLUSION 13 The Court orders service on Defendant through the United States Marshal as follows: 14 The Clerk will issue a summons and the United States Marshal will serve, without 15 prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint (dkt. 10) with attachments, copies of this order and 16 the notice of assignment of prisoner case to a United States magistrate judge and accompanying 17 magistrate judge jurisdiction consent or declination on Deputy Karl Greigore #2251 at Santa Rita 18 County Jail. The Clerk is also requested to serve a copy of this order on the Plaintiff. 19 In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows: 20 No later than sixty days from the date of service, Defendant shall file his motion for 21 summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual 22 documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and shall 23 include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events at issue. If Defendant 24 is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by such a motion, he shall so inform the Court 25 prior to the date that such motion is due. Moreover, all papers filed with the Court shall be 26 promptly served on Plaintiff. 27 At the time the dispositive motion is served, Defendant shall also serve, on a separate 1 Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003); see Woods 2 v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding that Rand and Wyatt notices must be 3 given at the time motions for summary judgment or motion to dismiss for non-exhaustion are 4 filed, not earlier); Rand, 154 F.3d at 960 (establishing the separate paper requirement). 5 Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the Court and 6 served upon Defendant no later than thirty days from the date the motion is served upon him. 7 Additionally, Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE – WARNING,” which is 8 provided to him pursuant to Rand, 154 F.3d at 953-954, and Klingele v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JACOBI GAINES, Case No. 23-cv-06195-RMI
9 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE v. 10
11 KARL GREIGORE, Defendant. 12
13 14 Plaintiff, a detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 15 original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. 16 (dkt. 10). 17 LEGAL STANDARDS 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 21 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 23 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 24 Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement 27 need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it 1 claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide 2 the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 3 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do . . . [f]actual allegations must 4 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 5 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a 6 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has 7 recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly as such: “[w]hile legal 8 conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 9 allegations . . . [and] [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 10 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft 11 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 12 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 13 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 14 alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 15 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 16 DISCUSSION 17 Plaintiff alleges that a deputy at the county jail assaulted him. It appears Plaintiff is a 18 pretrial detainee. 19 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a post-arraignment pretrial 20 detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 21 386, 395 n.10 (1989) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-39 (1979)). To prove an excessive 22 force claim under § 1983, a pretrial detainee must show only that the “force purposely or 23 knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 24 389, 397 (2015). “A court must make this determination from the perspective of a reasonable 25 officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of 26 hindsight.” Id. “A court (judge or jury) cannot apply this standard mechanically.” Id. “[O]bjective 27 reasonableness turns on the ‘facts and circumstances of each particular case.’” Id. (quoting 1 A non-exhaustive list of considerations that may bear on the reasonableness of the force 2 used include “the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used; 3 the extent of the plaintiff's injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount 4 of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the 5 officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting.” Kingsley, 576 U.S. at 397. 6 Plaintiff alleges that on September 10, 2022, Defendant Deputy Greigore escorted him 7 from his cell and had his hand on the back of Plaintiff’s neck and squeezed it tightly. (dkt. 10 at 2). 8 Plaintiff asked him to stop, but Defendant refused and then slammed Plaintiff against a wall while 9 Plaintiff was handcuffed and then Defendant used his upper body to shove Plaintiff against the 10 wall with his arms raised still behind his back. Plaintiff’s arm then popped out of place. (Id.) 11 Plaintiff presents a cognizable claim against Defendant. 12 CONCLUSION 13 The Court orders service on Defendant through the United States Marshal as follows: 14 The Clerk will issue a summons and the United States Marshal will serve, without 15 prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint (dkt. 10) with attachments, copies of this order and 16 the notice of assignment of prisoner case to a United States magistrate judge and accompanying 17 magistrate judge jurisdiction consent or declination on Deputy Karl Greigore #2251 at Santa Rita 18 County Jail. The Clerk is also requested to serve a copy of this order on the Plaintiff. 19 In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows: 20 No later than sixty days from the date of service, Defendant shall file his motion for 21 summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual 22 documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and shall 23 include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events at issue. If Defendant 24 is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by such a motion, he shall so inform the Court 25 prior to the date that such motion is due. Moreover, all papers filed with the Court shall be 26 promptly served on Plaintiff. 27 At the time the dispositive motion is served, Defendant shall also serve, on a separate 1 Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003); see Woods 2 v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding that Rand and Wyatt notices must be 3 given at the time motions for summary judgment or motion to dismiss for non-exhaustion are 4 filed, not earlier); Rand, 154 F.3d at 960 (establishing the separate paper requirement). 5 Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the Court and 6 served upon Defendant no later than thirty days from the date the motion is served upon him. 7 Additionally, Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE – WARNING,” which is 8 provided to him pursuant to Rand, 154 F.3d at 953-954, and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 9 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 If Defendant files a motion for summary judgment claiming that Plaintiff failed to exhaust 11 his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), Plaintiff should take 12 note of the attached page headed “NOTICE – WARNING (EXHAUSTION),” which is provided 13 to him as required by Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 n. 4. 14 If Defendant wishes to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen days after the 15 opposition is served. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 16 No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. All 17 communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendant, or Defendant’s counsel, 18 if and when counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendant or 19 Defendant’s counsel. 20 Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No 21 further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the parties 22 may conduct discovery. 23 Finally, it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 24 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 25 Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 26 do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 27 Civil Procedure 41(b). 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: March 7, 2021 3 4 ROBERT M. ILLMAN 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
© 15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) 2 If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case dismissed. 3 A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if 4 granted, end your case. 5 Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. 6 Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact-- 7 that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party 8 who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your 9 case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly 10 supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your 11 complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to 12 interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts 13 shown in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of 14 material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, 15 if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be 16 dismissed and there will be no trial. 17 NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION) 18 If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, they are seeking 19 to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case. You have the right to 20 present any evidence you may have which tends to show that you did exhaust your administrative 21 remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of declarations (statements signed under penalty of 22 perjury) or authenticated documents, that is, documents accompanied by a declaration showing 23 where they came from and why they are authentic, or other sworn papers, such as answers to 24 interrogatories or depositions. If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to 25 exhaust and it is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.
26 27