Randle v. Antioch Police Department

Background

Ramello D. Randle, an inmate at the Martinez Detention Facility proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a required review of certain complaints filed by incarcerated people. In an earlier order, the court found that the complaint stated a claim that could be decided by a court against Sergeant Jimmy Wisecarver, Officer Eric Rambaugh, and Officer Brock Marcotte for allegedly using excessive force during Randle’s arrest.

The earlier order found that Randle’s other claims did not state claims that could proceed and gave him until June 28, 2024, to file an amended complaint. The court warned that if he did not do so, those claims would be dismissed. No response was received from Randle.

Ruling

The court ordered that the only claims remaining were the excessive-force claims against Wisecarver, Rambaugh, and Marcotte. It dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice. The order did not decide whether Randle would ultimately win or lose the excessive-force claims.

The clerk was directed to issue a summons, and the United States Marshal was directed to serve the summons, the complaint and attachments, the earlier dismissal order allowing amendment, and this order on the three officers without requiring prepayment of fees. The court also directed that a courtesy copy be sent to the City of Antioch City Attorney’s Office.

Case management

The defendants were ordered to file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No later than 91 days after the order was issued, they were required to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, or tell the court if the case could not be resolved through summary judgment. Randle’s opposition, if any, would be due 28 days after the motion was filed, and the defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after the opposition.

The order allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and required Randle to serve copies of his communications with the court on the defendants or their counsel. It also stated that Randle was responsible for prosecuting the case and keeping the court informed of address changes. Judge Jacquelyn Corley warned that failure to comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.