Stevens v. Aaren

Background

Dean M. Stevens, a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed his second amended complaints while allowing him to amend. The court reviewed Stevens’s third amended complaint under the statute requiring early screening of prisoner lawsuits against government entities or personnel.

Stevens alleged that on January 20, 2005, he turned himself in at the North County Detention Facility and was sentenced to 30 days for traffic tickets. After being transported to the Main Adult Detention Facility, he alleged that Defendant Busher placed him in waist and leg restraints, took him to the second-story roof, and pushed him toward the edge three times. Stevens alleged that Deputy Brad James’s voice came over Busher’s radio saying, “That’s enough,” and that he later realized he had been subjected to a “mock execution.” He sought an injunction, litigation costs, and damages.

Screening ruling

The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law. Applying the screening standard, the court concluded that Stevens’s allegations, liberally read, were sufficient to state an excessive-force claim against Busher under the Eighth Amendment.

The court also found sufficient Stevens’s claim against James based on supervisory liability. The court understood Stevens to allege that James ordered Busher to stop and that Busher may have been acting under James’s orders. The court stated that a supervisor may be liable for personal involvement or for a sufficient causal connection to the constitutional violation, including culpable action or inaction, acquiescence, or reckless or callous indifference.

Orders entered

The court ordered the clerk to send Busher and James the lawsuit notice, waiver-of-service materials, the third amended complaint and attachments, and a copy of the order. It terminated Bill Cogbill and the Sonoma County Sheriff from the docket because they were not named in the third amended complaint.

The court directed the defendants, no later than 91 days after the order was filed, to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the claims found cognizable. It set deadlines for Stevens’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and provided other case-management instructions. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the claims.