Penny v. Alameda County

Background

Louis Levern Penny, an inmate at Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County, filed this civil-rights case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed his complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Penny also asked the court to appoint a lawyer for him.

Penny alleged that Alameda County Sheriff’s Deputy Pereira entered his cell and attacked him, including by repeatedly kicking and punching him after Penny was subdued on the floor in handcuffs. Penny also alleged that five or six unidentified deputies, whom he called the “et al. Defendants,” were called to restore order and used unnecessary excessive force.

Court’s analysis

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal right was violated by someone acting under state authority. The court concluded that, liberally construing Penny’s allegations, his claim that Deputy Pereira punched and kicked him stated a legally cognizable excessive-force claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Penny listed Alameda County as a defendant but stated that he wished to withdraw the county. Because the complaint contained no allegations against the county, Alameda County was dismissed from the action. The court explained that Penny could name the county in an amended complaint if he alleged that a county policy or custom caused the constitutional violation.

The court found that Penny’s allegations against the five or six unidentified deputies were too conclusory. If he continued to pursue claims against them, he had to identify each person, describe specifically what that person did or failed to do, and use numbered “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” designations if their names remained unknown. The court stated that Penny, not the court, was responsible for identifying those defendants.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Penny’s amended complaint had to be filed by May 1, 2020, and had to be a complete statement of his claims. The court warned that failure to meet the deadline would result in dismissal of all defendants and claims except the excessive-force claim against Deputy Pereira.

The court denied Penny’s motion for appointment of counsel. It found that exceptional circumstances were not present because Penny had adequately explained his claims and there did not appear to be a likelihood of success on the merits. The court also reminded Penny that it would not gather evidence for him and that litigants must use the discovery procedures in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to obtain evidence.