(PC) Hernandez v. Martin
1:17-cv-00429
E.D. Cal.Jun 28, 2017Background
- On July 2, 2016, four Bakersfield officers (Doe #1–#4) entered Hernandez’s home without a warrant; Hernandez alleges he was ordered to lie face down and then beaten—resulting in broken left arm and leg—and taken to Kern Medical Center.
- Hernandez pleaded no contest to violating Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1) in Kern County case BF16421A arising from that arrest and was sentenced; the court took judicial notice of that conviction.
- At Kern Medical Center, Hernandez alleges Dr. Doe #5 minimized his injuries and denied pain medication; later another doctor diagnosed broken arm and leg and provided casts; Hernandez also alleges jail medical staff (Doe #8) failed to treat his pain requests.
- While jailed, Hernandez alleges inadequate assistance with mobility (dragging bedding), missed meals, lack of pain medication, and subsequent searches and seizures of his property; he alleges retaliation tied to prior family litigation against the police.
- The magistrate judge screened the pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, found cognizable Fourth Amendment illegal-entry claim and a potentially cognizable § 1983 medical claim against a jail medical employee, but identified pleading defects (linkage, Heck bar, failure to allege compliance with California Tort Claims Act) and gave leave to amend or proceed only on cognizable claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force / unlawful detention | Hernandez says officers (Doe #2–#4) assaulted him, broke his arm and leg, used OC spray and baton, and drew guns during arrest | Officers (and court) note Hernandez pleaded no contest to resisting/obstructing an officer, which may bar damages under Heck because success would imply invalidity of conviction | Claims against Doe #2–#4 may be Heck-barred absent allegation conviction was reversed or that force is unrelated; no cognizable claim against Doe #1 for lack of linkage |
| Illegal entry / search & seizure | Hernandez alleges officers entered his home without a warrant or knocking | Defendants contest the legality but at screening stage there are plausible allegations of warrantless entry | Warrantless entry allegations are sufficient at pleading stage to state a Fourth Amendment claim against the entering officers |
| Medical care (§ 1983 and state malpractice) | Hernandez alleges hospital and jail clinicians denied pain meds and failed to treat broken bones | Defendants argue medical decisions may be professional judgment; plaintiff did not plead elements of state malpractice or show public-employee claim presentation | § 1983 claim not cognizable against hospital Dr. #5 absent allegation Dr. #5 was a public employee; cognizable § 1983 claim against jail medical employee Doe #8 survives screening; state malpractice claims not pleaded with required elements and plaintiff did not allege CTCA compliance |
| Conditions of confinement & retaliation | Hernandez alleges failure to assist mobility, missed meals, withheld pain meds, and retaliatory searches tied to his intent to sue | Defendants argue lack of specific linkage to named defendants and insufficient facts showing protected activity was motivating factor | Conditions/retaliation claims are inadequately pleaded for failure to link actions to specific defendants and to allege causation; plaintiff may amend to allege facts showing causation and adverse actions |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506 (pleading standard for civil claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive-force Fourth Amendment framework)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (bar on § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of conviction)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability and linkage requirement)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (professional-judgment standard for confinement medical decisions)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (conditions-of-confinement inquiry)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (objective reasonableness analysis for force)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (use of force in seizures)