United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO.
KIM United States Magistrate Judge
a former pretrial detainee at the Santa Clara County Jail
(SCCJ), has filed a pro se First Amended Complaint (FAC) for
damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that on February
22, 2014, while being booked into SCCJ, Correctional Deputy
Jarret Wright “tightened [his] waist chains to the
point [he] couldn’t breath[e]” and he “lost
consciousness” and fell, hitting and injuring his head.
FAC (ECF No. 25) at 3.
is properly before the undersigned for screening because
plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Standard of Review
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or
“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se
pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two elements:
that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States was violated, and
that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting
under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487
U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a
post-arraignment detainee from the use of excessive force
that amounts to punishment. Graham v. Connor, 490
U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989) (citing Bell v. Wolfish,
441 U.S. 520, 535-39 (1979)). But the Fourth
Amendment’s reasonableness standard sets the applicable
constitutional limitations on the treatment of a
pre-arraignment detainee. Pierce v. Multnomah County,
Oregon, 76 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir. 1996). Liberally
construed, plaintiff’s allegations that, during the
course of booking him, Correctional Deputy Jarret Wright
tightened his waist chain to the point where he could not
breathe and he lost consciousness and fell, hitting and
injuring his head, states a cognizable § 1983 claim for
damages against Wright for use of excessive force in
violation of the Fourth Amendment.
foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 1. The clerk
shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall
serve, without prepayment of fees, (1) a copy of the
operative FAC (ECF No. 25) in this matter and all attachments
thereto, (2) a notice of assignment of prisoner case to a
United States magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate
judge jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form
(requesting that each defendant consent or decline to consent
within 28 days of receipt of ...