(PC) Bunton v. City of Fresno Police Department, 1:23-cv-00104

Background

Plaintiff Benjamin Bunton, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a first amended § 1983 complaint arising from incidents in February 2022 at/near the Roadway Inn in Fresno.
On February 10, 2022 Bunton alleges four Fresno police officers and two motel security guards confronted and subdued him: he was held at gunpoint, tased, kicked, and punched, suffering head and rib injuries; he later sought ER treatment.
On February 14, 2022 Bunton alleges a separate assault by a motel security guard that split his lip and cracked his jaw.
Bunton sues the four unnamed Fresno officers, two unnamed security guards, and the City of Fresno Police Department; he seeks monetary damages and alleges deprivation of property and equal protection claims among others.
The magistrate judge screened the FAC under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, finding cognizable Fourth Amendment claims for excessive force against two officers and a failure-to-intercede claim against one officer, but rejecting other claims (including Monell, property-deprivation, and claims against private guards) as not sufficiently pleaded.
The court permitted limited discovery to identify Doe officers and ordered Bunton to elect by July 21, 2023 whether to proceed only on the cognizable Fourth Amendment claims or to stand on the full FAC subject to recommendation of dismissal for the noncognizable claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessive force (Feb. 10)	Bunton alleges officers and guards tased, kicked, punched him while he was unarmed and compliant.	Officers acted reasonably given circumstances or were not the ones using force.	FAC states excessive-force claims against Officers 2 and 3; Officers 1 and 4 did not use force so not directly liable.
Failure to intercede	Bunton contends an officer who held a gun and did nothing had a duty to stop colleagues.	Officer lacked opportunity/awareness to intercede.	Claim cognizable against Officer 1 (held gun and facilitated); not stated as to Officer 4 (unclear opportunity).
State action re: private security guards	Bunton alleges guards participated with police in assaults, so § 1983 applies.	Security guards are private actors; no facts show they acted under color of law or at police direction.	FAC fails to plead facts showing guards acted under color of state law; claims against guards not cognizable under § 1983.
Municipal liability (City/PD / Monell)	Bunton names City/PD and seeks municipal liability for officers’ conduct.	City: no policy/custom allegations; cannot be liable solely on respondeat superior.	FAC fails to allege a policy/custom or official practice; Monell claim dismissed as not pleaded.
Deprivation of property	Bunton alleges property was thrown away or stolen after threats by guards.	No specific factual allegations tying any named defendant to the loss; private actors not § 1983 defendants.	Claim not sufficiently pleaded against any defendant and not actionable under § 1983 as alleged.

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; plausibility and rejection of conclusory allegations)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness test for force)
Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (official-capacity vs. individual-capacity distinction)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (state-action analysis for § 1983 "under color of law")
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (joint action test for private actors acting with state)
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (governmental nexus test for state action)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (private contractors performing state functions may be state actors)
Liston v. County of Riverside, 120 F.3d 965 (Graham factors and force-need analysis)
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (Monell requires action pursuant to official municipal policy)