Martinez v. Medical Services & Deputy Sheriffs at San Bruno et al

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PHILLIP ANDREW MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY TILLERY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-10173-SVK
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, an inmate in the San Francisco County Jail (“SFCJ”), filed this pro se civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against “San Bruno,” the City and County of San Francisco and
two SFCJ employees: Deputy Ng and Deputy Tillery. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, upon preliminary
screening, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.
§ 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,
901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not
Case 4:25-cv-10173-JST Document 6 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 4

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). Although to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed
factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do. . . . 	Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-55 (2007). A complaint must
proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged
violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988).
LEGAL CLAIMS
The allegations in the complaint are sparse. Plaintiff alleges he was “badly beaten” while
in administrative segregation at the SFCJ. Dkt. 1 at 2. He further alleges his criminal defense
attorney investigated the incident and took photos with the help of an investigator. No other facts
are alleged. The complaint names “San Francisco County,” “San Bruno,” and Deputies Ng and
Tillery as Defendants.1 Id. at 1. He seeks money damages. Id. at 3.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a pretrial detainee in
county jail from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment. Graham v. Connor, 490
U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989). To prove such a claim under § 1983, a pretrial detainee must show that
the “force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v.
Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 397 (2015). 	Plaintiff has not alleged any of the circumstances
surrounding the beating, such as who beat him, when it took place, the extent or nature of the force
used against him, or what injuries he sustained, if any. Consequently, the bare allegations in the
complaint do not support a reasonable conclusion that the individual Defendants subjected him to
1 The complaint also includes unnamed defendants. Dkt. 1 at 1 (including in caption “Medical
Services and Deputy Sheriffs”), 7 (naming “all deputies in camera feeds”).
Case 4:25-cv-10173-JST Document 6 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
excessive force in violation of his constitutional rights.
The Court is also aware that the beating may have been inflicted by other inmates, and not
the individual defendants or other SFCJ personnel. Due process imposes a duty upon jail officials
to protect inmates themselves from harm at the hands of other inmates. Castro v. Cnty. of Los
Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). The elements of a pretrial detainee’s due
process failure-to-protect claim against an individual officer are:
(1) The defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the
conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (2) Those
conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious
harm; (3) The defendant did not take reasonable available measures
to abate that risk, even though a reasonable officer in the
circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk
involved – making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct
obvious; and (4) By not taking such measures, the defendant caused
the plaintiff’s injuries.
Id. (footnote omitted). As Plaintiff alleges no facts about the circumstances, extent, or nature of
the beating, the complaint does not support a reasonable inference that Defendants made an
intentional decision with respect to his safety, that he was at a substantial risk of harm, or that
Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to lower that risk. Consequently, the complaint does
not state a cognizable claim against Defendants for violating his due process right to safety from
harm from other inmates.
Moreover, to successfully sue a municipality, such as the City and County of San
Francisco or the City of San Bruno, plaintiff must show: “(1) that he possessed a constitutional
right of which he or she was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy
amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is
the moving force behind the constitutional violation.” Oviatt By and Through Waugh v. Pearce,
954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989))
(internal quotation marks omitted). In addition to failing to allege facts supporting a reasonable
inference that he suffered a constitutional violation, Plaintiff has not alleged San Francisco or San
Bruno had a policy at the SFCJ, or that such policy was the “moving force” behind the alleged use
of excessive force.
Plaintiff is given leave to amend his complaint, below, to allege facts that correct the
Case 4:25-cv-10173-JST Document 6 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
foregoing deficiencies.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
1. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before February 16, 2026. The
amended complaint must be on the court’s complaint form and include the caption and civil case
number used in this order (No. 25-cv-10173 SVK (PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely
replaces the original complaint, (see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992)),
Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original by reference; he must include in his
amended complaint all the claims he wishes to pursue. Failure to amend within the designated
time and in accordance with this order may result in dismissal of this case.
2. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of
Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion, although
he may request an extension of time provided it is accompanied by a showing of good cause, and
it is filed on or before the deadline he wants to extend. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal
of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
3. The Clerk shall mail Plaintiff two copies of the court’s civil rights complaint form,
instructions for completing it, and a postage-paid envelope to return the form to the court.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2026
Susan van Keulen
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-10173-JST Document 6 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 4