Leonard Scarbrough v. City of Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, et al.

Summary

The court grants Leonard Scarbrough’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and screens his prisoner civil rights complaint. The order finds cognizable excessive-force claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Deputies Gonzalez and Rozo, but finds no other claims adequately stated against the remaining defendants. Plaintiff is permitted either to proceed on the identified claims or to file an amended complaint within 30 days.

Holdings

1. The complaint stated cognizable excessive-force claims against Deputies Gonzalez and Rozo. The applicable constitutional provision depends on whether plaintiff was a convicted inmate or a pretrial detainee: the Eighth Amendment applies to a convicted inmate, while the Fourteenth Amendment applies to a pretrial detainee.
2. The complaint did not state an excessive-force claim against Sergeant Cooper because it failed to allege facts showing his personal involvement, and a supervisor cannot be held liable solely because of a supervisory position.
3. The complaint did not state failure-to-train or municipal-liability claims because its conclusory allegations did not adequately allege deliberate indifference, a policy, custom, or practice, or a pattern of similar constitutional violations that was the moving force behind the alleged deprivation.
4. The complaint did not state a Bane Act claim because it did not allege compliance with California’s Government Claims Act.
5. Plaintiff satisfied the requirements to proceed in forma pauperis, and the motion was granted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated cognizable constitutional excessive-force claims against Deputies Gonzalez and Rozo.
2. Whether the complaint stated a personal-liability or supervisory-liability claim against Sergeant Cooper.
3. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded failure-to-train or municipal-liability claims against the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department.
4. Whether the complaint stated a Bane Act claim without alleging compliance with California’s Government Claims Act.
5. Whether plaintiff satisfied the requirements to proceed in forma pauperis.

Disposition

other