Randle v. Antioch Police Department

Background

Ramello D. Randle, an inmate in the Contra Costa County Jail proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Antioch Police Department and named officers and sergeants. He alleged that officers tracked his physical movements, call-detail records, and location data without a warrant or probable cause; arrested him based on a false claim of an emergency; used threats and physical force during the arrest; moved his identification card into a phone case; falsified or concealed cell-phone evidence; and discriminated against him because he is African American.

The opinion states that Randle was convicted of first-degree murder in Contra Costa County Superior Court on March 22, 2024. He sought money damages for deprivation of rights, pain and suffering, excessive force, racially prejudicial language, abuse of power, dishonesty, evidence-related misconduct, and targeting.

Screening standard

Because Randle was a prisoner suing governmental entities and officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also construed Randle’s self-represented filing liberally, while requiring enough factual allegations to make each claim plausible rather than merely conclusory.

Claims and analysis

Unlawful search. The court dismissed this claim because Randle did not explain how officers tracked his movements or obtained his call-detail records and location data. He also did not provide facts showing that the alleged searches lacked probable cause or did not qualify for an exception to the warrant requirement, such as an emergency. The court granted leave to amend this claim.

Unlawful arrest. The court dismissed this claim because Randle did not allege facts plausibly showing that the arrest lacked probable cause. The court noted that he did not identify the evidence officers relied on or clearly identify which defendants arrested him. The court granted leave to amend this claim.

Falsification of evidence. The court dismissed this claim because Randle did not adequately allege that the defendants deliberately fabricated evidence or that the alleged fabrication caused his loss of liberty. As to the identification card, he did not explain its relevance to the criminal charges or conviction. As to the alleged cell-phone evidence, he did not describe what Officer Brogdon allegedly falsified or concealed, how he did it, or why the evidence mattered. The court granted leave to amend this claim.

Excessive force. When liberally construed, Randle’s allegations that Sergeant Jimmy Wisecarver threatened to kill him, Officer Brock Marcotte stomped on his hand while he was on the ground, and Officer Eric Rambaugh failed to intervene were sufficient to state a plausible Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim capable of judicial determination. This claim was not dismissed at the screening stage against Wisecarver, Marcotte, and Rambaugh.

Racial discrimination. The court dismissed this claim because Randle’s allegation that the police department generally targeted African American people was conclusory. The court also found that an alleged racial slur, while harmful, did not by itself establish a constitutional violation because Randle did not allege that he was treated differently from similarly situated suspects of other races. The court granted leave to amend this claim.

Disposition

The court ordered that the excessive-force claim against Wisecarver, Marcotte, and Rambaugh was capable of judicial determination. It dismissed all other claims with leave to amend. Randle could file an amended complaint by June 28, 2024. The court explained that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and had to include all claims Randle wished to pursue. If he did not timely file an adequate amended complaint, only the excessive-force claim identified by the court would remain for service on the defendants.

The court denied Randle’s request for a subpoena because the form did not identify, or include attachments identifying, the documents he sought. The order also stated that Randle was responsible for prosecuting the case and warned that failing to comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.