1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 RODRIC P. STANLEY, Case No. 24-cv-04282-JD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER RE SERVICE v. 8

9 SHIFFER, et al., Defendants. 10

11 12 Plaintiff, a detainee of uncertain custodial status, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 13

. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 14 DISCUSSION 15 STANDARD OF REVIEW 16 Federal courts engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress 17 from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915A(a). The Court will identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are 19 frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief 20 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must 21 be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1990). 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 23 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 24 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 25 relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 26 cause of action will not do . . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 27 the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations 1 face.”

. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 2 standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 3 must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 4 should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 5 to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). 6 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 7 the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 8 committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

(1988). 9 LEGAL CLAIMS 10 Plaintiff alleges that he was the victim of excessive force. The Due Process Clause of the 11 Fourteenth Amendment protects a post-arraignment pretrial detainee from the use of excessive 12 force that amounts to punishment. Graham v. Connor,

, 395 n.10 (1989) (citing Bell 13 v. Wolfish,

(1979)). To prove an excessive force claim under Section 1983, 14 a pretrial detainee must show only that the “force purposely or knowingly used against him was 15 objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson,

(2015). “A court must 16 make this determination from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what 17 the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”

“A court (judge or jury) 18 cannot apply this standard mechanically.”

“[O]bjective reasonableness turns on the ‘facts and 19 circumstances of each particular case.’”

(quoting Graham v. Connor,

). 20 A non-exhaustive list of considerations that may bear on the reasonableness of the force 21 used include “the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used; 22 the extent of the plaintiff's injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount 23 of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the 24 officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting.” Kingsley,

. 25 Because the Kingsley standard applicable to excessive force claims by pretrial detainees is 26 purely objective, it does not matter whether the defendant understood that the force used was 27 excessive or intended it to be excessive. Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles,

(9th 1 challenged governmental action is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective or 2 that it is excessive in relation to that purpose.’”

(quoting Kingsley,

)) 3 (emphasis in original). 4 Plaintiff alleges that on June 23, 2024, he observed defendant deputy Button, Shiffer and 5 others enter his housing unit and leave with several bags containing his personal property, 6 including legal materials, that were then thrown into the garbage. Plaintiff voiced his concerns 7 and Shiffer told him to file a grievance. Shiffer then told plaintiff to turn around and Shiffer 8 forcefully handcuffed plaintiff and took plaintiff to his cell. Plaintiff was told to drop to his knees 9 but before he could get down, his legs were knocked out from under him, and he landed on his 10 face. Shiffer, Button and others put their body weight on plaintiff. Shiffer placed his knee on 11 plaintiff’s left shoulder while someone else grabbed his legs. Shiffer then applied a wrist lock and 12 forcibly pulled plaintiff’s arms up injuring his shoulder. Plaintiff was not resisting during this 13 incident and suffered injuries to his wrists, lower back and knee. Liberally construed, plaintiff 14 states a claim for excessive force against Shiffer and Button. 15 To the extent plaintiff seeks to raise a claim regarding the destruction of his legal materials, 16 he only presents a few allegations. He may file an amended complaint demonstrating how 17 defendants violated his rights. Once defendants waive service or are served, and counsel for them 18 appears, this Court will determine if this case will be referred for mediation to the Northern 19 District of California Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. Plaintiff has another case preparing for 20 trial and a joint conference with that case may be appropriate. See Stanley v. McClay, 21-cv-4496 21 JD. 22 CONCLUSION 23 1. The Clerk will issue a summons and the United States Marshal will serve, without 24 prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint (Dkt. No. 1) with attachments and copies of this order 25 on Deputy Shiffer and Deputy Button at Martinez Detention Facility. The remaining defendants 26 and claims are dismissed with leave to amend. 27 2. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendants, or 1 defendants or defendants’ counsel. 2 3. It is plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 3 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 4 || Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 5 do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 6 Civil Procedure 41(b). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: August 26, 2024 9 10 JAMES D#NATO I United St#tes District Judge a 12

2B

15

16

17

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