Pumphrey v. Contra Costa County

Background

Tyrone Pumphrey sued City of Pittsburg police officers Colton Harvey, Dillon Tindall, Jesus Arellano, Thompson, Goldman, Oreja, and Seaborn; Contra Costa County; and Contra Costa County sheriff’s deputies identified as Does 1–25. He proceeded without prepaying filing fees, and the court had previously granted his application to do so.

Pumphrey alleged that on June 8, 2019, officers approached him while he was sitting in a parked car outside his girlfriend’s home. He alleged that Officer Harvey took and threw his phone, that Officers Harvey and Tindall questioned him about probation, ordered him out of the car, searched the car without consent, handcuffed him, and placed him in a police vehicle. He also alleged that officers struck him, placed him in a restrictive bodywrap device, and slammed him into the police car.

Pumphrey further alleged that sheriff’s deputies at the Martinez Jail struck him, punched and kicked his ribs while his hands were restrained, slammed his head against a counter, and ignored his requests for pain medication. He alleged that he later received hospital treatment and was found to have several broken ribs.

Screening standard

Because Pumphrey was proceeding without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court explained that it must dismiss such a complaint before service if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or shows a complete defense on its face. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a constitutional or federal-law right was violated by someone acting under state authority.

Claims and ruling

Pumphrey asserted four claims under Section 1983. He alleged that Officers Harvey and Tindall used unreasonable and excessive force by applying tight handcuffs, and that all named defendant officers used excessive force by striking him and using the bodywrap device. He alleged that Officers Harvey and Tindall unlawfully detained him by handcuffing him, and that other officers unlawfully detained him by using the bodywrap and placing him in the police car.

He also alleged that Officer Harvey violated the Fourteenth Amendment by falsifying a police report and that other defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment by attacking him at the Martinez Jail after his hands were restrained.

The court held that these allegations were more than bare assertions and, when read generously, stated claims for which relief could be granted under Section 1983. The court therefore ordered the complaint served on the defendants. It directed the clerk to issue the summons and related documents and directed the United States Marshal to serve them without requiring Pumphrey to prepay fees. The defendants were directed to complete the jurisdiction-consent form and file answers under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Disposition

The court did not decide whether Pumphrey ultimately proved his claims. It determined only that the complaint passed the required initial screening and ordered service.