Wheeler v. Mayo, et al.

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
SHAWN WHEELER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZACHARY MAYO and SPIRIT LAKE
POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:25-cv-00510-AKB
SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY
SCREENING JUDGE
Plaintiff Shawn Wheeler is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action. At the time he filed this action, Plaintiff was an inmate held in the Kootenai County Jail.
Plaintiff has since been released. See Dkt. 10. The Court previously reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, determined that it failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted, and allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to amend. Initial Review Order,
Dkt. 9.
Plaintiff has now filed an Amended Complaint. See Dkt. 12. The Court retains its screening
authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Having screened the Amended
Complaint, the Court enters the following order allowing Plaintiff to proceed on his Fourth
Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Mayo.
1. Screening Requirement and Pleading Standard
The Court must dismiss a prisoner or in forma pauperis complaint—or any portion
thereof—that states a frivolous or malicious claim, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
Case 2:25-cv-00510-DKG Document 13 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 6

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 2
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint fails to state a claim for relief under
Rule 8 if the factual assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are insufficient for the reviewing
court plausibly “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “[D]etailed factual allegations” are not
required, but a plaintiff must offer “more than . . . unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-
me accusation[s].” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the facts pleaded are “merely
consistent with a defendant’s liability,” the complaint has not stated a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
2. Discussion
Plaintiff brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights statute. To state a plausible
civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or
created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person acting under color of state
law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff’s initial complaint did not contain any allegations regarding the factors that must
be balanced in a Fourth Amendment excessive force analysis. See Davis v. City of Las Vegas, 478
F.3d 1048, 1053–54 (9th Cir. 2007). The Amended Complaint does contain such allegations.
Plaintiff asserts that he was not committing a crime but was merely riding his bicycle and that
Defendant Officer Mayo maneuvered his car so Plaintiff would crash into it and then tackled
Plaintiff to the ground. Am. Compl. at 2–6. These allegations are sufficient to state a plausible
excessive force claim against Defendant Mayo. See Davis, 478 F.3d at 1053–54 (amount of force
Case 2:25-cv-00510-DKG Document 13 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 6

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 3
used must be considered in light of the severity of the crime, whether plaintiff posed a threat,
whether plaintiff was resisting or attempting to flee, and the availability of alternative methods of
subduing plaintiff).
However, the Amended Complaint does not state a plausible excessive force claim against
Defendant Spirit Lake Police Department. As the Court explained in the Initial Review Order, a
§ 1983 claim against a local governmental entity requires the plaintiff to show that a policy,
custom, or practice of the entity caused the constitutional violation. See Dkt. 9 at 3–4; Monell v.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Like the initial complaint, the Amended Complaint
contains no allegations supporting a reasonable inference that Defendant Mayo’s actions were the
result of a policy, custom, or practice of the Spirit Lake Police Department.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff may proceed as outlined above. This Order does not guarantee that Plaintiff will
be successful. Rather, it merely finds that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Mayo
is plausible—meaning that the claim will not be summarily dismissed at this time but will proceed
to the next stage of litigation. This Order is not intended to be a final or a comprehensive analysis
of Plaintiff’s claims.
Defendant may still file a motion for dismissal or motion for summary judgment if the facts
and law support such a motion.1 Because (1) prisoner filings must be afforded a liberal
construction, (2) governmental officials often possess the evidence prisoners need to support their
claims, and (3) many defenses are supported by governmental records, an early motion for
1 The standards for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) are
the same standards that the Court has used to screen the Amended Complaint under §§ 1915 and
1915A. Therefore, motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are disfavored in cases subject to
§§ 1915 and 1915A and may be filed only in extraordinary circumstances.
Case 2:25-cv-00510-DKG Document 13 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 6

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 4
summary judgment—rather than a motion to dismiss—is often a more appropriate vehicle for
asserting procedural defenses such as entitlement to qualified immunity.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Review the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff may proceed on his excessive force claim against Defendant Mayo. All
other claims are DISMISSED, and the Spirit Lake Police Department is
TERMINATED as a party to this action. If Plaintiff later discovers facts sufficient
to support a claim that has been dismissed, Plaintiff may move to further amend the
complaint to assert such claims.2
3. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (see Dkt. 8), officers of the Court
will “issue and serve all process.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). However, it remains an in
forma pauperis plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the Court with the defendants’
service addresses. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994)
(upholding dismissal of pro se complaint where plaintiff did not provide the
Marshal with sufficient information to effect service), overruled on other grounds
by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489
(8th Cir. 1993) (“While in forma pauperis plaintiffs should not be penalized for a
2 Any amended complaint must contain all of Plaintiff’s allegations in a single pleading and
cannot rely upon or incorporate by reference prior pleadings. See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114
F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[An] amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being
treated thereafter as non-existent.”), overruled in part on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa
County, 693 F.3d 896, (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and
Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the district court erred by entering
judgment against a party named in the initial complaint, but not in the amended complaint).
Case 2:25-cv-00510-DKG Document 13 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 6

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 5
marshal’s failure to obtain proper service, it was [Plaintiff’s] responsibility to
provide proper addresses for service ….”). Accordingly, within 90 days after entry
of this Order, Plaintiff must provide the Court with the physical service address of
Defendant Mayo so that the Court can effect service. If Plaintiff does not do so, this
case may be dismissed for lack of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
4. After Defendant appears, the Court will issue an order governing the pretrial
schedule, including disclosure and discovery in this case. See General Order 343,
In Re: Adoption of a Standard Disclosure and Discovery Order for Pro Se Prisoner
Civil Rights Cases (Feb. 8, 2019).
5. Each party must ensure that all documents filed with the Court are simultaneously
served upon the opposing party (through counsel if the party has counsel) by first-
class mail or via the CM/ECF system, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 5. Each party must sign and attach a proper mailing certificate to each
document filed with the court, showing the manner of service, date of service,
address of service, and name of person upon whom service was made.
6. The Court will not consider ex parte requests unless a motion may be heard ex parte
according to the rules and the motion is clearly identified as requesting an ex parte
order, pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Practice before the United States District
Court for the District of Idaho 7.2. (“Ex parte” means that a party has provided a
document to the court, but that the party did not provide a copy of the document to
the other party to the litigation.)
7. All Court filings requesting relief or requesting that the Court make a ruling or take
an action of any kind must be in the form of a pleading or motion, with an
Case 2:25-cv-00510-DKG Document 13 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 6

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 6
appropriate caption designating the name of the pleading or motion, served on all
parties to the litigation, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7, 10 and 11,
and Local Rules of Civil Practice before the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho 5.1 and 7.1. The Court will not consider requests made in the form
of letters.
8. No party may have more than three pending motions before the Court at one time,
and no party may file a motion on a particular subject matter if that party has another
motion on the same subject matter currently pending before the Court. Motions
submitted in violation of this Order may be stricken, summarily denied, or returned
to the moving party unfiled.
9. Plaintiff must notify the Court immediately if Plaintiff’s address changes. Failure
to do so may be cause for dismissal of this case without further notice.
10. Pursuant to General Order 457, this action is hereby RETURNED to the Clerk of
Court for random civil case assignment to a presiding judge, on the proportionate
basis previously determined by the District Judges, having given due consideration
to the existing caseload.
DATED: February 10, 2026
_________________________
Amanda K. Brailsford
U.S. District Court Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00510-DKG Document 13 Filed 02/10/26 Page 6 of 6