Braggs v. San Diego Sheriff's Department

No. 3:24-cv-01772-RBM-VET (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2025) · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · May 9, 2025 · No. 3:24-cv-01772-RBM-VET

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied as moot Plaintiff Michael Thomas Le’Keith Braggs’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. The court held that the San Diego Sheriff’s Department was not a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and concluded that the allegations against Sergeant Brock did not sufficiently establish that the alleged force was objectively unreasonable under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court granted leave to file a second amended complaint by June 20, 2025.

Holdings

  1. The second motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied as moot because the court had already granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
  2. The San Diego Sheriff's Department is not a proper defendant under § 1983 because it is not a person within the meaning of the statute.
  3. The claim against Sergeant Brock was dismissed because the first amended complaint did not allege enough facts concerning what precipitated the force, whether Plaintiff complied or resisted, or what injuries resulted from the incident involving Brock to show that the force was objectively unreasonable.
  4. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint because he was proceeding pro se and the court did not find that the pleading deficiencies were incurable.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the second motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied as moot after the court had already granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status.
  2. Whether the San Diego Sheriff's Department is a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  3. Whether the allegations against Sergeant Q. Brock plausibly stated a Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim by alleging that the force was objectively unreasonable.
  4. Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend after dismissal of the first amended complaint.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (16)

  • Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)(followed)
  • Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393–94 (1989)(followed)
  • Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Johnson v. County of San Diego, Case No. 3:18-cv-01846-LAB-RBB, 2018 WL 5630503, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2018)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…