Matt Scott v. Latavia

District Court, N.D. California·Decided June 9, 2026·No. 3:26-cv-00391·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MATT SCOTT, Case No. 26-cv-00391-LJC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE v. 9

10 LATAVIA, Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a detainee at the San Francisco county jail proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 14 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force by a jail deputy. For the reasons stated 15 below, the complaint is ordered served on the defendant. Plaintiff has been granted leave to 16 proceed in forma pauperis. 17 DISCUSSION 18 1. Standard of Review 19 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 20 redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 22 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 23 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 24 Further, it should be noted that pleadings submitted by pro se parties must be liberally construed. 25 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While specific facts are not necessary, the 1 which it rests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Although a plaintiff need not include 2 detailed factual allegations in a complaint, the complaint must do more than recite elements of a 3 cause of action and state conclusions; rather, a plaintiff must state factual allegations sufficient to 4 raise the entitlement to relief “above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 5 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 6 plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The Supreme Court explained this standard: “[w]hile legal 7 conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 8 allegations . . . [and] [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 9 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft 10 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 11 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 12 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 13 the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 14 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 15 2. Legal Claims 16 Plaintiff alleges the following: on October 10, 2025, from around 2:30 to 3:10 in the 17 morning, he was physically and verbally assaulted by defendant deputy Latavia at the direction of 18 the shift booking lieutenant because he was questioning the fingerprinting staff about how long it 19 was taking to be booked. Latavia stood behind plaintiff and told him to shut the fuck up, and 20 plaintiff turned around and realized Latavia was standing very close to him. Plaintiff let him know 21 he did not have to be that close, and Latavia continued to degrade him. The lieutenant came out of 22 his office and said, “fuck that, cuff him up!” Latavia cuffed plaintiff and grabbed his arms and 23 started to twist them upwards. A number of deputies then marched him to a holding cell, where 24 Latavia shoved him inside so roughly that he almost fell. Plaintiff told him he did not have to do 25 that. The lieutenant then told the deputies to take plaintiff to a safety cell. During the exchange, 26 Latavia continued to punch plaintiff on the left side of his body. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. 27 Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated a claim for excessive force. The Fourth 1 arrestee while detained in custody post-arrest but pre-arraignment. See Pierce v. Multnomah 2 County, Oregon, 76 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir. 1996). 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 5 1. The Clerk of the Court shall mail (1) a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver 6 of Service of Summons, (2) the Waiver of Service of Summons, (3) a copy of the complaint (Dkt. 7 No. 1), (4) a copy of this order, and (5) the notice of assignment of prisoner case to a United States 8 magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate judge jurisdiction consent or declination to consent 9 form to Deputy Latavia at San Francisco County Jail #1. The Clerk shall also mail a copy of the 10 complaint and a copy of this order to the City Attorney of San Francisco. Additionally, the Clerk 11 shall mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff. 12 2. Defendant is cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 13 them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. Pursuant 14 to Rule 4, if defendant, after being notified of this action and asked by the Court, on behalf of 15 plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so, they will be required to bear the cost of 16 such service unless good cause can be shown for their failure to sign and return the waiver form. 17 If service is waived, this action will proceed as if defendant had been served on the date that the 18 waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), defendant will not be required to serve 19 and file an answer before 60 days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent. (This 20 allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of summons is 21 necessary.) Defendant is asked to read the statement set forth at the foot of the waiver form that 22 more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to waiver of service of the 23 summons. If service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before defendant has been 24 personally served, the Answer shall be due 60 days from the date on which the request for waiver 25 was sent or 20 days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 26 3. Defendant shall answer the complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure. The following briefing schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action: 1 dispositive motion, they must do so no later than 60 days from the date their answer is due. If the 2 defendant files a motion for summary judgment, it shall be supported by adequate factual 3 documentation, must conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and must 4 include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events at issue.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Matt Scott v. Latavia, (N.D. Cal. 2026).

Matt Scott v. Latavia (Matt Scott v. Latavia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related