You're viewing Docket Item 8 from the case Smith v. Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case3:13-cv-01022-JST Document8 Filed11/26/13 Page1 of 2







UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA





ROGER B. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.


CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,





Defendants.



Case No. 13-cv-01022-JST (PR)


ORDER OF DISMISSAL



Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining that he was subjected to excessive force in July 2011 while

incarcerated at the Martinez Detention Facility. The Court reviewed the complaint and determined

that it stated a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation. The Court gave plaintiff leave to amend

so that he could attempt to identify any of the allegedly misbehaving deputies, who he had only

identified as John Doe defendants in his complaint. The Court also determined that the complaint

did not state a claim against either of the two defendants for which plaintiff did provide names,

i.e., the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department and the Martinez Detention Facility. The Court

directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than July 31, 2013. The Court notified

plaintiff that failure to state a claim against any named defendant would result in dismissal of the

action without prejudice to filing an action against one or more of the Doe defendants if he ever

learns their true identities.



On July 31, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, again naming as defendants the

Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department, the Martinez Detention Facility, and Doe Contra Costa

Sheriff's Deputies. (Dkt. #6 at 7-8.) As was the case with his original complaint, plaintiff's first

amended complaint fails to identify individual defendants and set forth specific facts showing how

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t



S
d
e
t
i
n
U


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

Case3:13-cv-01022-JST Document8 Filed11/26/13 Page2 of 2



each defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v

Murphy, 844 F2d 628, 634 (9th Cir 1988.)



For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's first amended complaint is DISMISSED. The

dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff filing a new action once he ascertains the identity of the

deputies he claims violated his federal rights.





The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions as moot and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 26, 2013

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge



2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t



S
d
e
t
i
n
U


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N