United States District Court, E.D. California
ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a Sacramento County Jail inmate proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis with a First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed October 12,
2017, the court screened plaintiff's original complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court found that
plaintiff's factual allegations stated claims for the use
of excessive force but the complaint failed to identify the
proper defendants, naming only Sacramento County Sheriff
Scott Jones and four “unknown” deputies.
See ECF No. 13. Plaintiff was granted leave to file
a FAC, which he filed on October 20, 2017. The court now
screens the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the
reasons set forth below, the court finds that the FAC states
cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claims for the use of
excessive force against Sacramento County Sheriff's
Deputies Robinson, Allgeier and Krastz, and a Fourteenth
Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Sergeant Maberry;
the court directs plaintiff to submit the information
necessary for the United States Marshal to serve process on
these defendants. The court also recommends dismissal of
Sheriff Jones for failure to state a cognizable claim.
Finally, the court addresses plaintiff's miscellaneous
Screening of First Amended Complaint
court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks
an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v.
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984).
provides more detailed factual allegations than the original
complaint and identifies the challenged conduct of each
defendant as follows, ECF No. 15 at 4-5:
Deputy Robins heard me say a cuss word as I signed a write up
I held against a wall. I've had 3 brain surgeries and
occasionally mumble a cuss word. I can't help it. Deputy
Robins grabbed my arm and twisted it so hard that he broke
it! Then he tackled me! Then Deputy Allgier and Kratz ran
over and jumped in to help Deputy Robins! Despite my NOT
resisting and Deputy Robins having me in a headlock and
viciously trying to rip my head off! The 3 of them tortured
me by bending my limbs in wrong directions for no reason!
Then they hand-cuffed me and Sgt. Maberry appeared. I told
him my arm was broken. He kept telling me to “shut the
fuck up!' He heard me say my arm was broken, yet he let
those 3 deputies drag me into a cell and beat me and nearly
choke me to death. Then he almost choked me to death. . . . I
was laying on the floor on my stomach. . . . Then Deputy
Allgier began walking on my back on his bony knees. He kept
going up my back to my skull, then back down to my butt! He
was trying to damage my spine!
The FAC alleges that, as a result of this incident,
plaintiff's left arm was broken, his left ear was
deafened, and he is incontinent due to spinal damage.
Id. at 4. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from each
defendant. Id. at 6. Plaintiff has separately filed
a copy of an “Inmate Incident Report” that
recounts the official findings concerning this incident,
see ECF No. 25; the court will direct that this
document be attached to the FAC.
reasons set forth in the court's prior screening order
(see ECF No. 13), including a summary of the legal
standards for stating a Fourteenth Amendment excessive force
claim, the court finds that the FAC states Fourteenth
Amendment claims for the use of excessive force against
defendants Robinson (Badge # 1237), Allgeier (Badge #110) and
Kraatz (Badge # 985).The court also finds that the FAC also
states a Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect
claimagainst defendant Maberry (Badge # 42).
no longer names Sheriff Jones. For this reason and for the
reasons previously stated by the court in screening
plaintiff's original complaint, see ECF No. 13
at 4, the undersigned recommends that Sheriff Jones be
dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff's Pending Motions
has filed two motions asking the court to waive the filing
fee for this case, ECF No. 23, and to provide plaintiff with
$500 per month to “facilitate discovery and other
desired advances” in this case, ECF No. 24. Both
requests will be denied. Prisoners are required to pay the
full filing fee to commence a civil action, see 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), and the court has no authority to
provide funds to pro se litigants for discovery or other