Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Abdifatar Muktar Muse, a detainee proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that San Diego Police Department officers used excessive force during an unlawful arrest on August 3, 2025.
Muse alleged that Officer Lingenhol punched him numerous times while he was handcuffed and posed no threat, and that Officers Davila Cruz, Jackson, and De Guia also used unnecessary excessive force.
He further claimed false arrest and false imprisonment from August 3, 2025, until February 9, 2026, when criminal charges were dismissed.
Muse filed two motions to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a motion for extension of time.
The Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted Muse’s first IFP motion (ECF No. 2) based on his trust account showing a $0.00 average monthly balance and $0.31 available balance, assessed no initial partial filing fee, and denied the second IFP motion (ECF No. 7) as moot.
The Court denied the motion for extension of time (ECF No. 8) without prejudice as unclear and unnecessary.
On screening, the Court dismissed all claims against the San Diego Police Department for failure to allege a Monell policy or custom.
It dismissed excessive force claims against Davila Cruz, Jackson, and De Guia for conclusory allegations lacking specific facts.
It dismissed false arrest and false imprisonment claims against all defendants, including Lingenhol, for failure to allege absence of probable cause.
However, the Court found Muse’s allegations against Lingenhol—punching a handcuffed, non-threatening detainee—sufficient to state a plausible Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.
The Court granted Muse 45 days to either proceed solely on that claim against Lingenhol or file an amended complaint curing all deficiencies.
Muse received 45 days from the order to notify the court that he would proceed only against Lingenhol or to submit an amended complaint.
The screening order therefore left that excessive-force theory open while dismissing the other theories with leave to amend.
Key Takeaways
- Prisoner IFP status granted where trust account shows zero average monthly balance and minimal funds; full $350 filing fee still owed in installments under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
- Municipal entity (SDPD) cannot be sued under § 1983 on respondeat superior; plaintiff must allege specific policy or custom causing constitutional violation.
- Excessive force during arrest analyzed under Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness standard (Graham v. Connor), not Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments.
- Conclusory allegations of excessive force against multiple officers without specific factual detail fail Iqbal plausibility standard.
- False arrest/imprisonment claims require factual allegations showing absence of probable cause; mere assertion of unlawful detention and lack of Miranda warnings is insufficient.
Why It Matters
The ruling gives California practitioners a concrete example of how federal courts separate the statutory source of immigration detention from the process constitutionally required after release and re-detention.
It also shows why the precise remedy and procedural posture matter: a briefing order, recommendation, bond-hearing order, and final release order have different immediate consequences.
Counsel should preserve the governing custody documents, dates, notices, and evidence concerning danger, flight risk, and removal feasibility.
The order did not decide whether excessive force actually occurred.
At screening, the court asks only whether well-pleaded factual allegations state a plausible claim.
Specific allegations that Lingenhol repeatedly punched a handcuffed person who posed no threat crossed that threshold, while collective assertions against the other officers did not identify what each person did.
Likewise, naming the police department was insufficient without facts connecting the alleged injury to a municipal policy, custom, or practice.
The ruling is a useful pleading guide: identify each officer’s conduct, plead why probable cause was absent for an arrest claim, and connect municipal liability to an institutional policy rather than respondeat superior.