(PC) Johnson v. Warden

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRANDON R. JOHNSON, Case No. 2:23-cv-00908-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION WARDEN, et al., OF TIME AS UNNECESSARY 15 Defendants. ECF Nos. 16 & 19 16 SCREENING ORDER THAT THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT STATES 17 COGNIZABLE FOURTH AMENDMENT EXCESSIVE FORCE AND BATTERY 18 CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT FRENCH AND FALSE ARREST CLAIMS 19 AGAINST DEFENDANTS FRENCH, LUCA, AND REIMCHE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS BE 22 DISMISSED AS NON-COGNIZABLE 23 ECF No. 17 24 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 26 Plaintiff, a prisoner in Avenal State Prison, alleges that defendants, all of whom are employed by the El Dorado County Sheriff’s office, violated his rights during an arrest in July 2021 by using excessive force against him, falsely imprisoning him, and, afterward, failing to safeguard his due process rights. ECF No. 17 at 9-16. After reviewing the complaint, I find that it states a viable Fourth Amendment excessive force and battery claim against defendant French.

3 It also states cognizable false arrest claims against French, Luca, and Reimche. I will direct service for that defendant. All other claims and defendants should be dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion to amend, ECF No. 16, and motion for extension of time, ECF No. 19, are denied as unnecessary. Plaintiff was offered an opportunity to amend in my last screening order, ECF No. 13, and no motion to amend is necessary. Additionally, there are no pending deadlines that necessitate a motion for extension of time.

9 Screening Order 10 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 11 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

16 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 20 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).

26 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 27 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017).

2 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

5 II. Analysis 6 Plaintiff alleges that, on July 4, 2021, he was returning to his car after exiting a grocery door. ECF No. 17 at 9. A man approached him and alleged that plaintiff’s car belonged to him.

8 Id. The two men had an altercation and defendant French responded to the scene. Id. Plaintiff alleges that French used unnecessary force to subdue him by tasing him and then beating and stomping on him. Id. These allegations are sufficient to state a Fourth Amendment claim against French. The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments do not apply because plaintiff was neither a pretrial detainee nor a prisoner at the time; the Fourth Amendment governs excessive force claims related to an arrest. See Hughes v. Rodriguez, 31 F.4th 1211, 1220 (9th Cir. 2022). These allegations also state a cognizable battery claim against French.

15 As to defendants Reimche and Luca, he alleges that, after French used excessive force in subduing him, they arrived and forcefully handcuffed him. ECF No. 17 at 10. A “forceful handcuffing” is insufficient to state an excessive force claim. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 18 386, 396 (1989) (“Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates the Fourth Amendment.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). And there is no viable claim for delayed medical care against Reimche or Luca. They allegedly arrived at the scene at 12:43 p.m. and, by 1:07 p.m., plaintiff was being transported to the hospital. ECF No. 17 at 10. These allegations are sufficient, however, to state cognizable false arrest claims against French, Luca, and Reimche.

24 Plaintiff’s other claims should be dismissed. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Leikauf, the El Dorado Sheriff, and El Dorado County itself are culpable because they failed to adequately train their deputies. Id. at 12. He has failed to allege any specific deficiencies in training or explain how he knows that French’s actions were caused by such an omission, however. To the contrary, if his allegations about the severity of the force used by French are accepted as true, even a complete layman would conclude that the force was excessive. Not every bad act by a law enforcement officer necessarily implicates a failure to train.

3 Plaintiff also claims that defendants French, Reimche, Luca, and Brown violated his due process rights by covering up the use of force incident. Id. at 15. He claims that defendant Brown approved these reports. Id. The due process clause contains no right to be free from false allegations; it guarantees only certain procedural protections in defending against those allegations. See Ponce v. AMTRAK R.R. Co., No. 1:21-cv-01200-JLT-BAM, 2022 U.S. Dist. 8 LEXIS 96676, *10 (E.D. Cal. May, 27, 2022) (“To the extent that he is seeking state a federal claim on the submission of false police reports, the Due Process Clause itself does not contain any language that grants a broad right to be free from false accusations, but guarantees certain procedural protections to defend against false accusations.”).

12 Given that plaintiff has already been afforded an opportunity to amend, I will direct service for his cognizable claims and recommend that his non-viable ones be dismissed.

14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend, ECF No. 16, and motion for extension of time, ECF No. 19, are DENIED as unnecessary.

17 2. This action shall proceed based on the Fourth Amendment excessive force and state law battery claims against defendant French and state law false imprisonment claims against defendants French, Reimche, and Luca.

20 3. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, a summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed November 7, 2023, ECF No. 17.

23 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court with the following documents: 26 a. one completed summons for the defendants; 27 b. three completed USM-285 form; and 28 c. four copies of the signed November 7, 2023 complaint.

1 5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service.

2 | Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the U.S. Marshals Service to | serve the above defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, without payment of | costs by plaintiff.

5 6. The failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.

6 7. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a district judge to this action.

7 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that all claims other than the ones identified as viable || above be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.

9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez | v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 ( q oy — Dated: _ January 16, 2024 21 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRANDON R. JOHNSON, Case No. 2:23-cv-00908-JDP (PC) 8 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS 9 v. WARDEN, et al., 11 Defendants.

In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff must submit: 1 completed summons form 3 completed forms USM-285 4 copies of the November 7, 2023 complaint

_________________________________ Plaintiff Dated: