Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Kevin Armando Hernandez Santillan, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 19, 2026, against Defendant Officer Zemel; the complaint itself is dated October 13, 2026. The complaint arises from an encounter in a parking lot in which Plaintiff alleges Officer Zemel approached his vehicle, questioned him about parking authorization, handcuffed him without resistance, applied a wrist lock that caused pain, searched the car without permission or probable cause, and later provided edited footage that allegedly removed evidence of the abuse.
The complaint asserts five claims: Fourth Amendment excessive force and policy brutality (Count I); Fourth Amendment unlawful search and seizure (Count II); Fourteenth Amendment denial of due process and evidence tampering (Count III); state-law civil assault and battery (Count IV); and state-law intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count V). Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for physical injuries, medical bills, and emotional distress, plus punitive and exemplary damages. Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prepaying fees or costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The screening order was filed November 4, 2026, and is dated November 3, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, finding he made the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Upon screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), however, the court found it failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The complaint lacked any allegation concerning the time and place of the events, where geographically they occurred, or the identity of the law enforcement agency involved, and the court could not follow the allegations describing what was edited from the footage. The allegations supporting each claim were deficient, conclusory recitals of the elements that did not give Defendant fair notice of the claims or the grounds supporting them.
The court concluded the complaint failed to satisfy the fair-notice standard and failed to state any cognizable claim against any defendant. Because the deficiencies might be curable, the court granted leave to amend. The order directs that within 30 days from service of the order, Plaintiff must either file a first amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies, file a notice expressing his desire to proceed on the complaint as filed — in which case the undersigned will recommend that the complaint be dismissed — or file a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court warned that failure to timely comply will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and/or failure to prosecute.
The order further instructs that any amended complaint must be brief but complete in itself, must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights, must re-plead all elements and relevant facts because an amended complaint supersedes the original, and may not add new, unrelated claims that change the nature of the suit.
Key Takeaways
- Pro se civil rights complaints must still contain sufficient factual allegations — including when and where events occurred and which law enforcement agency was involved — to give defendants fair notice of the claims and their grounds under Rule 8.
- Conclusory recitals of legal elements without supporting facts do not state a claim, even under the liberal construction afforded self-represented litigants.
- An amended complaint supersedes the original pleading and must be complete in itself, re-pleading all elements and relevant facts without reference to the prior complaint.
- Plaintiffs may not use an amended complaint to add new, unrelated claims that change the nature of the suit.
- If the plaintiff elects to proceed on the original complaint or fails to comply with the 30-day order, the magistrate judge will recommend — not directly order — dismissal.
Why It Matters
This first screening order illustrates how federal courts apply 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to in forma pauperis complaints: even liberally construed pro se pleadings must provide fair notice through concrete factual allegations rather than threadbare recitals of legal elements, and complaints missing basic details like time, place, and the responsible agency fail to state a claim.
The order also shows the practical structure of a magistrate judge's screening authority — dismissal is framed as a recommendation to the district judge — and the standard cure path of leave to amend on a firm 30-day deadline, with any amended complaint required to stand entirely on its own.