Hogg v. Sanchez
- William Orrick
- 3:23-cv-06021
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Hogg v. Sanchez, Judge Orrick let excessive-force claims proceed against two deputies and dismissed all claims against Sanchez after required prisoner screening.
Roosevelt Hogg’s excessive-force claims against Deputies R. Nixon and R. Quinteros may proceed. Yesenia L. Sanchez was terminated as a defendant, and all claims against her were dismissed.
What happened
In Hogg v. Sanchez, Roosevelt Hogg alleged that Alameda County sheriff’s deputies attacked him and used excessive force, violating the Eighth Amendment. He brought the case under a federal civil-rights law that allows claims against people acting under state law.
The court found that Hogg had stated plausible excessive-force claims against Deputies R. Nixon and R. Quinteros. It did not find a specific claim against Sheriff Yesenia L. Sanchez or allegations that she knew about, directed, or participated in the alleged assault.
Judge William H. Orrick ordered that the claims against Nixon and Quinteros proceed and directed them to respond with a dispositive motion or other response. The court dismissed all claims against Sanchez and directed the clerk to terminate her as a defendant.
The detailed version
- Hogg v. Sanchez · No. 3:23-cv-06021
- William Orrick
- Mar. 27, 2024
Background
Roosevelt Hogg, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Deputies R. Nixon and R. Quinteros attacked him and used excessive force on September 10, 2023. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights by people acting under state law. Hogg alleged that the deputies violated the Eighth Amendment.
Screening review
Because Hogg is a prisoner seeking relief from government officers, the court was required to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court identifies claims that are legally sufficient to proceed and dismisses claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court said that Hogg’s complaint, read liberally, stated cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims against Nixon and Quinteros.
Hogg also named Sheriff Yesenia L. Sanchez, apparently because she supervised the deputies. The court explained that a supervisor cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because of the supervisory relationship. The allegations must show that the supervisor participated in or directed the violation, or knew about it and failed to prevent it. The court found no allegations showing Sanchez’s knowledge of or participation in the alleged assault.
Ruling and next steps
The court ordered service of the complaint and attachments on Nixon and Quinteros. It directed those defendants to file by July 8, 2024, a motion for summary judgment, another dispositive motion, or a responsive pleading concerning the claims found cognizable. The order also provided procedures for any summary-judgment motion, opposition, discovery, and communications with the court.
The court dismissed all claims against Sanchez and directed the clerk to terminate her as a defendant. The opinion does not decide whether Hogg will ultimately prevail on the excessive-force claims against Nixon or Quinteros; it permits those claims to proceed past the initial screening stage.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.