Rossignon v. Antioch Police Department

Background

Gregory Rossignon, a detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Antioch Police Department and other defendants. He was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that, on January 24, 2019, he was running because he feared for his safety and hid in a doghouse. According to the complaint, police officers ordered him to come out, he exited with his hands raised, an officer released a police dog that attacked him, and other officers punched him and struck him with a gun.

Screening standard

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a complaint brought by a person in custody against governmental defendants. At this stage, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by someone acting under state law. It also explained that excessive force during an arrest is evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that police conduct be reasonable.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that an excessive-force allegation during an arrest can be a legally valid § 1983 claim. But Rossignon identified the officers involved without describing the specific conduct of each officer or explaining how each officer violated his constitutional rights. The court therefore required more information.

The court also addressed the effect of any related criminal case. It said that the record did not make clear whether Rossignon’s current custody was connected to the arrest or what had happened with the arrest-related charges. Depending on the charges and their status, he might not be able to obtain damages unless the charges were dropped, he was acquitted, or a conviction was expunged. If the prosecution was ongoing, the civil case would need to be stayed until the criminal case ended.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Rossignon was given 28 days from the filing of the order to submit an amended complaint containing the caption and case number and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The amended complaint had to include all claims he wished to pursue because it would replace the original complaint. The court stated that failure to amend within the deadline would result in dismissal of the case. It also stated that failure to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Judge Robert M. Illman did not finally decide whether the alleged force was unconstitutional; the order dismissed the complaint at the screening stage while allowing Rossignon to amend.