Tamrat v. Rhodes

Background

Herman Tamrat, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that an altercation with a security guard at a shopping mall led to police involvement. According to the complaint, officers arrived with guns drawn, and Tamrat said he could not breathe because he had been pepper-sprayed.

Tamrat alleged that Officer Albini grabbed his arms and wrists, forced him onto his stomach, and pressed a knee against his back and neck. He alleged that Officer Rhodes put his legs in a twisted compression hold that made breathing difficult. Tamrat claimed these actions caused pain and injuries. He also alleged that Officer Pietrelli searched him and recovered a knife, an unidentified officer pulled his sweater, and Officer Wanger watched without intervening.

Tamrat further alleged that Rhodes gave biased police reports and falsely charged him. He asserted claims involving the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and sought relief under Sections 1981, 1983, and 1985, the municipal-liability doctrine associated with Monell, and related state laws.

Screening analysis

Because Tamrat is a prisoner seeking relief from government officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. It also explained that a Section 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by someone acting under state authority.

The court stated that excessive-force allegations arising during an arrest are evaluated under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard. It found that Tamrat had presented sufficient allegations of excessive force against Albini and Rhodes. However, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend so it could obtain more information and determine which claims could proceed at that time.

The court was uncertain about the result of the criminal trial that Tamrat identified as occurring in September 2019 and whether his current imprisonment was connected to the incident in this case. The court explained that, if Tamrat had been convicted, some claims for damages could be barred by the rule that prevents a civil-rights action from undermining an outstanding conviction unless the conviction has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or otherwise called into question by a federal court. The court also stated that, depending on the criminal charges, the excessive-force claims might continue, or the civil case might be paused.

For the municipal-liability claim, the court required more facts showing that a municipal policy was deliberately indifferent to Tamrat's constitutional rights and caused the alleged violation. The opinion also explained that isolated acts by a non-policy-making employee do not establish a municipal policy or custom.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Tamrat to file an amended complaint by July 6, 2020, using the required case caption and case number and marking the first page "AMENDED COMPLAINT." The amended complaint had to include every claim Tamrat wished to pursue because it would completely replace the original complaint. The court also directed him to keep the court informed of address changes and warned that failure to amend or comply with court orders could result in dismissal of the action.

The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.