El Bey v. Russell

Background

Jeffery Dean Hersey El Bey, who represented himself and was proceeding without paying the filing fee, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment. He named arresting officer J. Russel, police chief David Norris, Governor Gavin Newsom, Menlo Park mayor Jen Wolosin, and Avital Barnes and Giles Giovannini, identified as officials in Sacramento.

El Bey alleged that a Menlo Park police officer stopped him on November 15, 2022, arrested him, handcuffed him, transported him to the police department, and booked him into jail. He alleged wrongful arrest, excessive force resulting in swollen wrists, and unconstitutional detention and confinement. He sought $2,000 for each day that the police department kept his private license plates.

Screening standard

Because El Bey was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint before directing the United States Marshal to serve the defendants. The court could dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that self-represented complaints should be read liberally and that leave to amend ordinarily should be granted when additional facts might cure the deficiencies.

Analysis

The court identified four possible claims: wrongful arrest, excessive force from tight handcuffs, unconstitutional confinement for an entire day, and supervisory liability under a municipal-policy theory known as Monell liability.

The court held that El Bey alleged no personal involvement by the police chief, mayor, or state officials. It explained that supervisory liability requires personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection to the constitutional violation. It also explained that municipal liability requires a policy or custom that caused a constitutional violation, and that El Bey alleged no facts suggesting such a policy or custom.

As to wrongful arrest, the court concluded that the allegations did not plausibly state a claim. It treated El Bey’s allegations as describing a lawful traffic stop based on the lack of proper license plates and a lawful arrest after he failed to provide a driver’s license. The court stated that driving without license plates was an infraction and that failing to provide a driver’s license while driving was a misdemeanor, although it could be charged as an infraction at the prosecutor’s discretion. The court said El Bey might state a claim if he could allege facts different from those described in the complaint.

Regarding excessive force, the court explained that the Fourth Amendment requires evaluating whether the force was reasonable under the circumstances. It said that overly tight handcuffs can sometimes support a constitutional claim, usually when they are extremely tight and cause injury, but that El Bey needed to describe more specifically what happened when he was handcuffed.

Regarding detention, the court explained that a detainee may have a right to release within a reasonable time after the reason for detention ends, while allowing reasonable processing delays. The court said El Bey needed to provide more information, including how long he remained in custody, before it could evaluate that claim.

Disposition

The order did not direct service of the defendants. Instead, it gave El Bey leave to amend the complaint by August 1, 2023, to describe what happened and the basis for his claims. He could alternatively file a one-page notice of voluntary dismissal by that date, which the order expressly stated would operate as a dismissal without prejudice. If he did neither, the court said it would reassign the case to a district judge and recommend dismissal.