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. The court had dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend, and he filed an amended complaint.

Rossignon alleged that on January 24, 2019, he was running because he feared for his safety and hid in a doghouse. He alleged that, after defendant Evans ordered him to come out, he exited with his left hand raised and his right hand touching the ground for support. He claimed that defendant Ramirez released a police dog, which attacked him and caused injuries, and that defendant Gerber repeatedly punched him and struck him with a gun, also causing injuries. He further alleged that defendants Evans, Downie, Magann, Varner, and Hoffman failed to intervene.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it must screen complaints filed by prisoners or detainees seeking relief from governmental entities or their employees. It must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. It also stated that allegations from people proceeding without lawyers are read liberally, but the complaint still must contain enough factual detail to make relief plausible rather than merely reciting legal conclusions.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action by a person acting under state law. The court stated that excessive-force claims arising from an arrest are evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard. It found that Rossignon’s allegations, read liberally, were sufficient to state claims against the police-officer defendants.

The court also discussed municipal liability under the rule commonly called Monell. A local government may be liable when an official policy or custom causes a constitutional violation, but it is not automatically liable for employees’ conduct. The court found that Rossignon had not alleged facts meeting that standard as to the City of Antioch or the Antioch Police Department.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the amended complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Rossignon to file a second amended complaint within 28 days. That complaint had to include all allegations because an amended complaint replaces the earlier complaint and may not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court directed Rossignon either to exclude the City of Antioch and Antioch Police Department or to provide sufficient municipal-liability allegations. If he did not amend, the case would continue only against the police-officer defendants. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman.