Scott v. Ames
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:24-cv-07273
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Scott v. Ames, Judge Cousins allowed a detainee’s excessive-force claim to proceed against Deputies Ames and Ruiz after screening.
The case proceeds on Christopher D. Scott’s excessive-force claim against Deputies Ames and Ruiz. The Contra Costa Sheriff Department was terminated as a party, and the defendants must respond to the lawsuit and follow the court’s case deadlines.
What happened
In Scott v. Ames, Christopher D. Scott, representing himself, sued two Contra Costa County sheriff deputies under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that Deputies Ames and Ruiz used excessive force against him while he faced criminal charges, injuring his shoulder and knees.
The court found that Scott’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case will proceed against Ames and Ruiz, while the Contra Costa Sheriff Department was removed because Scott did not name it in his amended complaint.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered service of the lawsuit and required the defendants to file a summary-judgment or other case-ending motion within 91 days, unless they notified the court that summary judgment was inappropriate.
The detailed version
- Scott v. Ames · No. 3:24-cv-07273
- Richard Seeborg
- Apr. 10, 2025
Background
Christopher D. Scott filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued Deputies Ames and Ruiz, alleging that on December 13, 2023, while he was facing first-degree robbery charges at the West County Detention Facility, they assaulted him by jumping on him and grabbing him. He alleged injuries to his left shoulder and both knees, additional pain from the deputies applying more pressure, and continuing mental and physical effects. Scott also alleged that Ames later recalled beating him with Ruiz. He sought damages.
Scott stated that he had not been convicted at the time of the alleged incident. The court therefore considered his allegations under the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against excessive force used to punish a person held before conviction.
Screening and Claim Allowed to Proceed
Because Scott sued government actors, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.
The court concluded that Scott’s allegations were sufficient to state an excessive-force claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. This was a screening determination that the claim could proceed; the order did not decide whether Scott would ultimately prevail.
Parties and Next Steps
The court ordered the Clerk to terminate the Contra Costa Sheriff Department as a party because Scott did not name it in his amended complaint. The court directed the Clerk to send the lawsuit, waiver-of-service forms, and the order to Deputies Ames and Ruiz, and to send courtesy copies to Contra Costa County Counsel.
The defendants were instructed to file their consent or declination regarding magistrate-judge jurisdiction within 28 days after the relevant form was sent. Within 91 days after the order was filed, they must file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion concerning the claim found cognizable, or inform the court if summary judgment could not resolve the case. The order also set deadlines for Scott’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and reminded Scott that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b).
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.