Wayne Romano Springfield v. Elmwood Men Facility

N.D. California

Wayne Romano Springfield v. Elmwood Men Facility

DecidedAugust 14, 2023

Docket3:23-cv-03325

StatusUnknown

This text of Wayne Romano Springfield v. Elmwood Men Facility (Wayne Romano Springfield v. Elmwood Men Facility) 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

Wayne Romano Springfield v. Elmwood Men Facility, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WAYNE ROMANO SPRINGFIELD, Case No. 23-cv-03325-RMI

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

10 ELMWOOD MEN FACILITY, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 3, 13, 14 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a former detainee proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. He has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 DISCUSSION 16 1. Standard of Review 17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 18 redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 19 U.S.C. 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 20 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 21 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 22 Further, it should be noted that pleadings submitted by pro se parties must be liberally construed. 23 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 25 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While specific facts are not necessary, the 26 statement needs to give the defendant fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds upon 27 which it rests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Although a plaintiff need not include 1 cause of action and state conclusions; rather a plaintiff must state factual allegations sufficient to 2 raise the entitlement to relief “above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 3 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 4 plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The Supreme Court recently explained this standard: “[w]hile 5 legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 6 allegations . . . [and] [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 7 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft 8 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 9 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 10 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 11 the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 12 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 13 2. Legal Claims 14 Plaintiff presents allegations that occurred while in county jail. The Due Process Clause of 15 the Fourteenth Amendment protects a post-arraignment pretrial detainee from the use of excessive 16 force that amounts to punishment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989) (citing Bell 17 v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-39 (1979)). To prove an excessive force claim under § 1983, a 18 pretrial detainee must show only that the “force purposely or knowingly used against him was 19 objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 397 (2015). “A court must 20 make this determination from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what 21 the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. “A court (judge or jury) 22 cannot apply this standard mechanically.” Id. “[O]bjective reasonableness turns on the ‘facts and 23 circumstances of each particular case.’” Id. (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. at 396). Accord 24 Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, 141 S. Ct. 2239, 2241-42 (2021) (per se rule that use of prone 25 restraint is constitutional so long as individual appears to resist officers’ efforts to subdue him 26 would be improper because it would “contravene the careful, context-specific analysis required” in 27 excessive force cases). 1 The Ninth Circuit held that the objective standard of Kingsley applicable to excessive force 2 claims brought by pretrial detainees, also applies to failure-to-protect claims brought by pretrial 3 detainees. Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-70 (9th Cir. 2016). Specifically, a 4 pretrial detainee need not “prove an individual defendant’s subjective intent to punish in the 5 context of a . . . failure-to protect claim.” Id. at 1070. A pretrial detainee who asserts a due process 6 claim for failure to protect instead must prove “more than negligence but less than subjective 7 intent – something akin to reckless disregard.” Id. at 1071. 8 Plaintiff’s allegations are difficult to understand. On June 6, 2023, he filed an Original 9 Complaint (dkt. 1) with very few details, but with several attachments. Then, on July 31, 2023, he 10 filed what appears to be an Amended Complaint (dkt. 13), with far fewer details and no 11 attachments. He claims to have been attacked by another detainee, who allegedly assaulted him 12 and caused eye trauma. (See dkt. 13 at 2; see also dkt. 1 at 1). Plaintiff then identifies two jail 13 deputies and says there were six fights with them, but he provides no details. (Id.) Plaintiff 14 provides no other details but does include many exhibits (with his first Complaint) (dkt. 1); 15 however, those documents do not provide any information regarding the deputies. The Complaints 16 (dkts. 1 and 13) are therefore dismissed with leave to amend, such that Plaintiff can provide more 17 information. 18 With respect to the detainee who assaulted plaintiff, he cannot seek relief against a private 19 citizen under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the 20 alleged constitutional deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 21 While Plaintiff is free to describe the other inmate’s role in the assault – including any connection 22 between being assaulted by an inmate and any action on the part of the deputies – he should not 23 name the inmate as a defendant in an amended petition. With respect to the deputies, Plaintiff must 24 provide more information regarding how they violated his constitutional rights such as explaining 25 (for example) whether or not they assaulted him or failed to protect him from the other detainee. 26 If Plaintiff contends that deputies assaulted him, he must describe what occurred, what 27 each deputy did and any injuries he suffered. If he alleges that the deputies failed to protect him 1 provide specific details, simply including exhibits is insufficient. 2 CONCLUSION 3 1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (dkts. 3, 14) is GRANTED. The Complaint 4 (dkts. 1, 13) is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards set forth above.

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WAYNE ROMANO SPRINGFIELD, Case No. 23-cv-03325-RMI

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

10 ELMWOOD MEN FACILITY, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 3, 13, 14 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a former detainee proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. He has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 DISCUSSION 16 1. Standard of Review 17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 18 redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 19 U.S.C. 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 20 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 21 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 22 Further, it should be noted that pleadings submitted by pro se parties must be liberally construed. 23 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 25 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While specific facts are not necessary, the 26 statement needs to give the defendant fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds upon 27 which it rests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Although a plaintiff need not include 1 cause of action and state conclusions; rather a plaintiff must state factual allegations sufficient to 2 raise the entitlement to relief “above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 3 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 4 plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The Supreme Court recently explained this standard: “[w]hile 5 legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 6 allegations . . . [and] [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 7 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft 8 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 9 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 10 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 11 the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 12 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 13 2. Legal Claims 14 Plaintiff presents allegations that occurred while in county jail. The Due Process Clause of 15 the Fourteenth Amendment protects a post-arraignment pretrial detainee from the use of excessive 16 force that amounts to punishment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989) (citing Bell 17 v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-39 (1979)). To prove an excessive force claim under § 1983, a 18 pretrial detainee must show only that the “force purposely or knowingly used against him was 19 objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 397 (2015). “A court must 20 make this determination from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what 21 the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. “A court (judge or jury) 22 cannot apply this standard mechanically.” Id. “[O]bjective reasonableness turns on the ‘facts and 23 circumstances of each particular case.’” Id. (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. at 396). Accord 24 Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, 141 S. Ct. 2239, 2241-42 (2021) (per se rule that use of prone 25 restraint is constitutional so long as individual appears to resist officers’ efforts to subdue him 26 would be improper because it would “contravene the careful, context-specific analysis required” in 27 excessive force cases). 1 The Ninth Circuit held that the objective standard of Kingsley applicable to excessive force 2 claims brought by pretrial detainees, also applies to failure-to-protect claims brought by pretrial 3 detainees. Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-70 (9th Cir. 2016). Specifically, a 4 pretrial detainee need not “prove an individual defendant’s subjective intent to punish in the 5 context of a . . . failure-to protect claim.” Id. at 1070. A pretrial detainee who asserts a due process 6 claim for failure to protect instead must prove “more than negligence but less than subjective 7 intent – something akin to reckless disregard.” Id. at 1071. 8 Plaintiff’s allegations are difficult to understand. On June 6, 2023, he filed an Original 9 Complaint (dkt. 1) with very few details, but with several attachments. Then, on July 31, 2023, he 10 filed what appears to be an Amended Complaint (dkt. 13), with far fewer details and no 11 attachments. He claims to have been attacked by another detainee, who allegedly assaulted him 12 and caused eye trauma. (See dkt. 13 at 2; see also dkt. 1 at 1). Plaintiff then identifies two jail 13 deputies and says there were six fights with them, but he provides no details. (Id.) Plaintiff 14 provides no other details but does include many exhibits (with his first Complaint) (dkt. 1); 15 however, those documents do not provide any information regarding the deputies. The Complaints 16 (dkts. 1 and 13) are therefore dismissed with leave to amend, such that Plaintiff can provide more 17 information. 18 With respect to the detainee who assaulted plaintiff, he cannot seek relief against a private 19 citizen under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the 20 alleged constitutional deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 21 While Plaintiff is free to describe the other inmate’s role in the assault – including any connection 22 between being assaulted by an inmate and any action on the part of the deputies – he should not 23 name the inmate as a defendant in an amended petition. With respect to the deputies, Plaintiff must 24 provide more information regarding how they violated his constitutional rights such as explaining 25 (for example) whether or not they assaulted him or failed to protect him from the other detainee. 26 If Plaintiff contends that deputies assaulted him, he must describe what occurred, what 27 each deputy did and any injuries he suffered. If he alleges that the deputies failed to protect him 1 provide specific details, simply including exhibits is insufficient. 2 CONCLUSION 3 1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (dkts. 3, 14) is GRANTED. The Complaint 4 (dkts. 1, 13) is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards set forth above. 5 The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed, 6 || and it must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words 7 “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely 8 || replaces the original complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See 9 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material 10 || from the original Complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result 11 in dismissal of this case. 12 2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 13 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk, headered “Notice of 14 || Change of Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so 3 15 may result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil a 16 Procedure 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: August 14, 2023 19 Mt Z 7 20 RQ@BERT M. ILLMAN 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wayne Romano Springfield v. Elmwood Men Facility, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wayne-romano-springfield-v-elmwood-men-facility-cand-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack