Flournoy v. Pinole Police Department

Background

James H. Flournoy, an inmate in county jail, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. He sued the City of Pinole, the Chief of the Pinole Police Department, Officer Delgado, Officer Dean, and Sergeant Rogers based on actions during his arrest. He also named Tiara Davis and Jovan Olison, whom the order describes as private citizens. The court separately granted Flournoy permission to proceed without paying filing fees.

Screening and claims

Because Flournoy sought relief from governmental defendants, the court conducted the preliminary screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally.

The court held that Flournoy's allegations against the City of Pinole, the police-department chief, Officer Delgado, Officer Dean, and Sergeant Rogers were, when liberally construed, cognizable under Section 1983. Those allegations concerned excessive force during the arrest and deliberate indifference to Flournoy's medical condition.

The court held that the claims against Tiara Davis and Jovan Olison were not cognizable under Section 1983 because they were private citizens rather than government officials and therefore did not act under color of state law. The court dismissed those claims for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief under Section 1983. It stated that Flournoy could pursue any state-law claims against them in state court.

Order and next steps

The court ordered the clerk to issue summonses and directed the United States Marshal to serve the complaint and order, without prepayment of fees, on the City of Pinole, the police-department chief, Officer Delgado, Officer Dean, and Sergeant Rogers. The defendants were ordered to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The order required the defendants, within 91 days after filing of the order, to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion, or to inform the court if summary judgment could not resolve the case. It set deadlines for Flournoy's opposition and the defendants' reply, and required the defendants to provide the warning concerning summary judgment described in the order. The court also allowed discovery, required Flournoy to serve copies of his court communications on the defendants or their counsel, and warned that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge William Alsup signed the order.