(PC) Humes v. Sacramento County, 2:18-cv-00966

Plaintiff Jon Humes, a former county inmate and current state prisoner, sued Sacramento County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pro se, alleging a warrantless home arrest, physical beating, and defamation related to sex-offender registration.
Plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the court found prior dismissals that could constitute strikes but those were assessed after the instant filing and therefore did not bar IFP here.
The court granted IFP and ordered the custodial agency to collect the filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
On screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court found the complaint deficient: the arrest/force claim lacked dates, officer identities, agency attribution, and facts showing a County policy causing the injury (Monell problem).
The defamation/registration claim duplicated allegations pending in a separate case against the County and was therefore duplicative.
The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days and detailed instructions were given about naming only responsible persons, keeping claims related, and pleading plausibly and concisely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff may proceed IFP despite prior strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)	Humes sought IFP; prior dismissals exist but not relied on here	County implicitly relies on strikes to deny IFP	Court granted IFP because the listed strikes were assessed after the instant complaint's filing date and thus did not bar IFP
Whether the complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (sufficiency and Monell)	Humes alleges warrantless home arrest, beating, and County policy causing 4th Amendment violations; alleges County is forcing sex-offender registration despite expungement	County argues complaint fails to identify policies or individuals and duplicates a pending case	Court dismissed complaint for failure to state plausible claims and for duplicative claims; granted leave to amend with instructions on proper pleading and defendant identification

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (legal frivolousness standard for IFP dismissal)
Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 (frivolousness guidance)
Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639 (dismissal of indisputably meritless IFP claims)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (pleading standards in pro se cases)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 8 plausibility and facts above speculative level)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (facial plausibility standard)
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires a policy or custom)
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (personal participation requirement for § 1983 liability)
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411 (liberal construction for pro se pleadings)
Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trs., 425 U.S. 738 (accept complaint allegations as true at screening)
Forsyth v. Humana, 114 F.3d 1467 (amended complaint supersedes earlier complaint)
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (no pleading of unrelated multiple claims in a single action)