Patrick Brown v. Efrain Gonzalez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PATRICK BROWN, K77441, Case No. 26-cv-01732-CRB (PR)

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

10 EFRAIN GONZALEZ,

11 Defendant(s).

12 Plaintiff Patrick Brown, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF) in Soledad, 13 California, has filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendant Efrain 14 Gonzalez, a Prison Industry Authority (PIA) employee at CTF, subjected plaintiff to 15 “unnecessary/excessive use of force on July 16, 2025.” ECF No. 1 (Compl.) at 7. 16 DISCUSSION 17 A. Standard of Review 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). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 21 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 22 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 23 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 24 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 26 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 27 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 1 B. Legal Claims 2 Plaintiff alleges that defendant subjected him to “unnecessary/excessive use of force” 3 when on July 16, 2025, defendant approached plaintiff without any warning and/or justification 4 and “violently grabbed a bottle of mug rootbe[e]r soda” out of plaintiff’s hand “with extreme 5 force,” and turned to other prisoners and said, “‘This is how I treat my whores!’” ECF No. 1 at 7 6 (emphasis in original). 7 Whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive force in violation of the Eighth 8 Amendment, the core judicial inquiry is whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to 9 maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Hudson v. 10 McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). In determining whether the use of force was for the purpose of 11 maintaining or restoring discipline, or for the malicious and sadistic purpose of causing harm, a 12 court may evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the 13 amount of force used, the extent of any injury inflicted, the threat reasonably perceived by the 14 responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Id. at 7. 15 But not every malevolent touch or other use of force by a correctional officer gives rise to 16 a federal cause of action. Id. at 9. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual 17 punishment necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical 18 force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind. Id. A 19 prisoner who complains of a push or shove or other de minimis use of force that causes no 20 discernable injury almost certainly fails to state a valid excessive force claim. Id. 21 Plaintiff’s allegations that without warning or justification defendant violently grabbed a 22 bottle of soda from plaintiff’s hand suggest no more than a de minimis use of force by defendant 23 insufficient to state a valid excessive force claim under the Eighth Amendment. See id. And 24 plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that defendant grabbed the bottle “with extreme force” does not 25 compel a different conclusion. But in an abundance of caution, plaintiff will be afforded an 26 opportunity to amend to set forth specific allegations showing that the force used by defendant 27 was more than de minimis, if possible. Specific allegations of the extent of injury suffered by ] a plausible claim of use of force by defendant that was more than de minimis. See Wilkins v. 2 || Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37-38 (2010). 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as indicated 5 above, within 28 days of this order. The pleading must be simple and concise and must include 6 || the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words FIRST AMENDED 7 || COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to file a proper amended complaint within the designated 8 || time will result in the dismissal of this action. 9 Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original complaint and 10 || all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the amended complaint will not be 11 considered by the court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 12 IT ISSO ORDERED. 13 Dated: April 22, 2026

3 15 CHARLES R. BREYER nited States District Judge 16

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