1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAWN DUNBAR, No. 2:25-cv-1326 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIN JAIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to

. This 18 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to

(b)(1). 19 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a 20 declaration that makes the showing required by

(a), his request will be granted. 21 When plaintiff filed his complaint, he was an inmate at the Sacramento County Jail. The 22 court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 23 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must 24 dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous 25 or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary 26 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 27 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and for screening purposes finds that plaintiff 28 may proceed on a claim against defendant Deputy Luca in his individual capacity arising under 1 | the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff has two options: (1) proceed on the claim identified above; 2 || or (2) seek leave to file an amended complaint in an attempt to cure deficiencies with respect to 3 || other claims. 4 In deciding whether to file an amended complaint, plaintiff should consider that 5 || Sacramento County cannot be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for the actions of their 6 || employees. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services,

(1978). “Instead, it is 7 || when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those 8 | whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the 9 || government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” Id. at 694. The allegations in plaintiff's 10 || complaint do not suggest he was harmed by a Sacramento County policy, custom, or practice, but 11 || simply the individual actions of defendant Luca. 12 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 13 | make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 14 || complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 15 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 17 2. Plaintiffis granted 21 days within which to complete and return the attached form 18 || notifying the court whether he wants to (1) proceed ona claim against defendant Deputy Luca in 19 || his individual capacity arising under the Fourteenth Amendment and voluntarily dismiss all other 20 || claims or (2) file an amended complaint in an attempt to cure the deficiencies in his complaint 21 || with respect to his other claims. If plaintiff does not return the form, this action will proceed on 22 || the claim described above and the court will recommend all other claims and defendants be 23 || dismissed. 24 | Dated: September 2, 2025 ( a8 } Kt | / } a a 25 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 2% UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 | 1 28 dunb 1326.1

1

2

3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SHAWN DUNBAR, No. 2:25-cv-1326 CKD P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 13 SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIN JAIL, HOW TO PROCEED et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 Check one: 17 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed on a claim against defendant Deputy Luca in his individual 18 capacity arising under the Fourteenth Amendment and voluntarily dismiss all other claims; OR 19 _____ Plaintiff wants time to file an amended complaint. 20 DATED: 21

________________________________ 22 Plaintiff 23 24 25 26 27 28