1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGER PRICE, No. 2:25-cv-03506-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MICHAEL JOHNSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff’s 21 declaration in support of the motion makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The 22 motion is granted. By separate order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 23 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The order will direct the appropriate 24 agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the 25 Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent 26 of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will 27 be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in 28 plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00 until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 1 I. Screening Requirement 2 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 3 action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 4 (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915(e)(2). 6 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 7 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 8 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 9 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 10 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 11 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 12 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 13 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 14 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 15 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 16 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 17 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 18 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 19 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 20 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 21 at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 22 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and 23 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 24 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 25 II. Allegations in the Complaint 26 Plaintiff alleges that on April 18, 2025, Shasta County Jail deputies used excessive force 27 on him resulting in broken ribs, a broken toe, and other injuries. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff also 28 alleges that he was sprayed with pepper spray and not decontaminated “for days.” Id at 4. 1 Plaintiff names as defendants Sheriff Johnson, Sgt. Huarte, and Deputies Dixon and Lewis. Id. at 2 1. 3 III. Legal Standards 4 A. Linkage Requirement 5 The civil rights statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 6 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 7 Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 8 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a 9 constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 10 in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 11 causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 12 Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must 13 link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 14 plaintiff's federal rights. 15 B. Supervisory Liability 16 Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their 17 subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) 18 (“In a § 1983 suit ... the term “supervisory liability” is a misnomer. Absent vicarious liability, 19 each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding is only liable for his or her own 20 misconduct.”). When the named defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between 21 the defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged; that is, a 22 plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that the defendant either personally participated in or 23 directed the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights or knew of the violations and failed to act 24 to prevent them. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 25 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). 26 C. Excessive Force Claims 27 A pretrial detainee may not be subjected to restrictions and/or conditions of confinement 28 that amount to “punishment” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See 1 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-37 (1979); Mendiola-Martinez v. Arpaio, 836 F.3d 1239, 2 1246 n.5 (9th Cir. 2016).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGER PRICE, No. 2:25-cv-03506-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MICHAEL JOHNSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff’s 21 declaration in support of the motion makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The 22 motion is granted. By separate order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 23 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The order will direct the appropriate 24 agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the 25 Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent 26 of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will 27 be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in 28 plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00 until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 1 I. Screening Requirement 2 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 3 action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 4 (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915(e)(2). 6 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 7 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 8 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 9 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 10 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 11 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 12 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 13 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 14 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 15 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 16 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 17 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 18 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 19 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 20 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 21 at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 22 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and 23 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 24 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 25 II. Allegations in the Complaint 26 Plaintiff alleges that on April 18, 2025, Shasta County Jail deputies used excessive force 27 on him resulting in broken ribs, a broken toe, and other injuries. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff also 28 alleges that he was sprayed with pepper spray and not decontaminated “for days.” Id at 4. 1 Plaintiff names as defendants Sheriff Johnson, Sgt. Huarte, and Deputies Dixon and Lewis. Id. at 2 1. 3 III. Legal Standards 4 A. Linkage Requirement 5 The civil rights statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 6 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 7 Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 8 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a 9 constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 10 in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 11 causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 12 Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must 13 link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 14 plaintiff's federal rights. 15 B. Supervisory Liability 16 Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their 17 subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) 18 (“In a § 1983 suit ... the term “supervisory liability” is a misnomer. Absent vicarious liability, 19 each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding is only liable for his or her own 20 misconduct.”). When the named defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between 21 the defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged; that is, a 22 plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that the defendant either personally participated in or 23 directed the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights or knew of the violations and failed to act 24 to prevent them. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 25 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). 26 C. Excessive Force Claims 27 A pretrial detainee may not be subjected to restrictions and/or conditions of confinement 28 that amount to “punishment” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See 1 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-37 (1979); Mendiola-Martinez v. Arpaio, 836 F.3d 1239, 2 1246 n.5 (9th Cir. 2016). 3 In order to state a Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim, plaintiff must allege 4 specific facts showing (1) a defendant purposely and knowingly used force against him; and (2) 5 the force used was objectively unreasonable. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 396 6 (2015). 7 IV. Analysis 8 Having conducted the required screening, the court finds that the complaint states 9 cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claims against Shasta County Sheriff Sgt. Huarte and 10 Deputies Dixon and Lewis. If the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a 11 reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. However, there are no allegations 12 against defendant Johnson, other than his position as a supervisor.1 This is not a sufficient factual 13 basis to rest liability. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). Based on these 14 deficiencies plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint should he decide that he 15 does not want to immediately proceed on the excessive force claim found cognizable against 16 defendants Huarte, Dixon, and Lewis. 17 V. Summary for Pro Se Plaintiff 18 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 19 intended as legal advice. 20 Some of the allegations in the complaint state claims for relief against the defendants, and 21 some do not. You must decide if you want to (1) proceed immediately on the Fourteenth 22 Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Huarte, Dixon, and Lewis; OR, (2) amend 23 the complaint to fix the problems identified in this order with respect to the remaining claims and 24 defendants. Once you decide, you must complete the attached Notice of Election form by 25 checking only one box and returning it to the court. 26 1 Plaintiff also names a number of other deputies in Claim I, but does not include them as 27 defendants so the Court has not addressed those allegations. If plaintiff wishes to name them as defendants in his amended complaint, assuming he includes factual allegations, the Court will 28 consider his pleading at the appropriate time. ] Once the court receives the Notice of Election, it will issue an order telling you what you 2 || need to do next. If you do not return this Notice, the court will construe this failure as consent to 3 || dismiss the deficient claims and defendants and will order service of the complaint only on the 4 | claims found cognizable in this screening order. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on the Fourteenth Amendment 7 excessive force claims against defendants Huarte, Dixon, and Lewis. 8 2. Within 21 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 9 attached Notice of Election form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the 10 screened complaint or whether he wants time to file an amended complaint. 11 3. If plaintiff fails to return the attached Notice of Election within the time provided, the 12 court will construe this failure as consent to dismiss the deficient defendant(s) and proceed 13 only on the cognizable claims identified in this screening order. 14 || Dated: April 8, 2026 fed) / dha MIG f- A. CAROLYNK.DELANEY 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 ROGER PRICE, 11 No. 2:25-cv-03506-CKD Plaintiff, 12 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION 13 MICHAEL JOHNSON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15
17 Check only one option:
18 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Huarte, Dixon, and Lewis. Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the 19 remaining claims and defendants.
20 _____ Plaintiff wants time to file an amended complaint.
22 DATED: 23
25 ____________________ Plaintiff 26