Humes v. Cali Hiway Patrol

Background

Francis A. Humes, identified as a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Highway Patrol and the Monterey County Sheriff’s Department. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend so that he could provide sufficient allegations supporting an excessive-force claim. Humes then filed an amended complaint.

Humes alleged that on March 5, presumably in 2021, he was involved in a traffic pursuit after an attempted traffic stop triggered a post-traumatic stress episode. He said he was involved in a traffic collision and fled on foot. Officers chased and tackled him. Humes alleged that Deputy Hija of the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office then applied a chokehold, causing him to lose consciousness. He further alleged that three unidentified California Highway Patrol officers witnessed and participated in the beating and the illegal use of a carotid chokehold. He alleged that he offered no physical resistance and complied with the officers’ demands until he became unconscious. He was taken to a hospital and sought damages.

Screening and claims allowed to proceed

Because a prisoner seeks relief from governmental entities or government personnel, the court was required to conduct preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also stated that it must read pleadings filed without a lawyer liberally.

The court held that Humes’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment against Deputy Hija. The court also held that the allegations were sufficient to state failure-to-intervene claims against John Does 1, 2, and 3. A police officer may be liable for failing to intervene when the officer has an opportunity to stop another officer’s violation of a person’s constitutional rights.

The court explained that unidentified defendants may be used when their identities cannot reasonably be known before filing. Humes may use discovery to identify the three unknown highway patrol officers and may ask to amend the complaint to substitute their names and serve them. The court cautioned that he must diligently seek their identities and substitute named individuals while the action against Hija is pending, or the claims against the unidentified officers may be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Orders and next steps

The court ordered the clerk to mail Hija a notice of the lawsuit, requests to waive formal service, the amended complaint and attachments, and a copy of the order. The defendants were instructed about the costs and deadlines associated with waiving service.

Within 91 days after the order was filed, the defendants must file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, or inform the court if they believe the case cannot be resolved by summary judgment. A summary-judgment motion must comply with Rule 56 and include adequate factual support. The order states that summary judgment or qualified immunity cannot be granted when material facts are disputed. If the defendants file a summary-judgment motion, they must provide Humes with the required notice explaining how to oppose it.

Humes must file and serve his opposition within 28 days after the defendants’ motion, and the defendants must file any reply within 14 days after the opposition. The motion will be treated as submitted when the reply is due, and no hearing will occur unless the court later orders one. The order also permits discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and directs Humes to serve copies of his court communications, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with deadlines and court orders.

Disposition

This was a screening and case-management order, not a final decision on liability or damages. The court allowed the excessive-force claim against Hija and the failure-to-intervene claims against the three unidentified officers to proceed at this stage, directed service on Hija, and set deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions.