Spingola v. Deputy Ujdar

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedApril 24, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-00557
StatusUnknown

This text of Spingola v. Deputy Ujdar (Spingola v. Deputy Ujdar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Spingola v. Deputy Ujdar, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES SPINGOLA, Case No. 25-cv-00557-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE v. 9

10 DEPUTY UJDAR, et al., Defendants. 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at the Alameda County Jail who is proceeding without representation 14 by an attorney, filed this civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two deputies in the 15 Alameda County Sherriff’s Department. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a 16 separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint state claims capable of judicial 17 determination and review, and the service is ordered upon Defendants. 18 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 officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 22 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 23 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 24 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 25 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.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 1 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to 2 state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to 3 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 4 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 5 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 6 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a 7 claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. To state a claim that is plausible on its 8 face, a plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 9 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 10 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 11 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 12 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 13 42, 48 (1988). 14 LEGAL CLAIMS 15 Plaintiff alleges Defendants Deputy Ujdar and Deputy Balone (or Balane) severely beat 16 him. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Plaintiff received an order end his phone call with his family members. 17 He stood up after hanging up and was speaking to an unidentified deputy when he was “pushed 18 from behind.” (Id.) Deputy Ujdar “grabbed” his arm, and Plaintiff “pulled away.” (Id.) 19 Defendants then “slammed” him into a table and to the ground, and they twisted his arms and legs 20 “trying to break them.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he suffers from a disability that is visible when he 21 walks. (Id. at 7.) He alleges he suffered injuries to his head, arms, and legs. (Id. at 9.) 22 When liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations state a claim capable of judicial 23 determination against Defendants for using excessive force in violation of his constitutional rights. 24 It is not clear from the complaint whether Plaintiff had been convicted of any charges at the time 25 of Defendants’ alleged use of force. If he had been convicted, his claim falls under the Eighth 26 Amendment; if not, his claim falls under the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. See 27 Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (holding that after conviction, an inmate is protected 1 officials); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10. (1989) (holding pretrial detainee protected 2 from use of excessive force by Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment). 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons discussed above, the Court orders as follows: 5 1. The Clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 6 prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint with attachments, and a copy of this 7 order on Deputy Ujdar and Deputy Balone (or Balane) at the Alameda County Jail. 8 The Clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of the first amended complaint with all 9 attachments and a copy of this order to the Alameda County Counsel’s Office. 10 2. Defendants shall file an answer in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 11 Procedure. 12 3. To expedite the resolution of this case: 13 a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is issued, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by 14 adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil 15 Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the 16 events at issue. If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary 17 judgment, theys shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 18 All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on Plaintiff. 19 b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, Defendants shall also serve, on a 20 separate paper, the appropriate notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th 21 Cir. 1998) (en banc). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012). 22 c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the 23 Court and served upon Defendants no later than 28 days from the date the motion is filed. 24 Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is provided to him 25 pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 26 d. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the opposition is 27 filed. 1 e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No 2 hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 3 4. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants or 4 their counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 5 Defendants or their counsel. 6 5. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 7 No further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

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

Related

Whitley v. Albers
475 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Earnest Woods, II v. Tom Carey
684 F.3d 934 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Spingola v. Deputy Ujdar, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spingola-v-deputy-ujdar-cand-2025.