Abdul Rahim Sabir II v. San Francisco County Sheriff's Office

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Jan. 21, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Abdul Rahim Sabir II v. San Francisco County Sheriff’s Office

District Court, N.D. California

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 3:25-cv-06662

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (555)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 ABDUL RAHIM SABIR II, Case No. 25-cv-06662-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff,
11
ORDER DISMISSING THE
v.
12 COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
13 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
14
Defendant.

15
16 INTRODUCTION
17 Plaintiff Abdul Rahim Sabir II claims that unnamed persons at the San Francisco
18 Sheriff’s Office violated his constitutional rights by stripping him naked in front of
19 females. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint containing these allegations is now before me
20 for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
21 The complaint fails to state any claim for relief. Sabir has not provided sufficient
22 factual information, such as the date on which this occurred, the persons who committed
23 these acts (the only defendant he names is the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office), and what
24 the context was (for example, why was he being transferred to another cell). Sabir must
25 allege specific facts tying each specific person to the exact wrong. Accordingly, the
26 complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before March 2,
27 2026. Failure to file a proper amended complaint by March 2, 2026, may result in
1 prosecute.
2 Because Sabir has paid the filing fee, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
3 DENIED as moot. (Dkt. No. 2.)
4 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions.
5 Sabir has filed several lawsuits. Many of them are subject to dismissal because
6 mail sent by the Court to Sabir has been returned as undeliverable, Sabir having failed to
7 update his address to his current one in Sacramento. Whenever his address changes, Sabir
8 must file a change of address notice in each of his cases, or they likely will be dismissed
9 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
10 The Clerk shall send this Order to this address:

11
Abdul Rahim Sabir II
12 # 709192
Sacramento Behavioral Healthcare Hospital
13 1400 Expo Parkway
Sacramento, CA 95815
14
DISCUSSION
15
A. Standard of Review
16
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a
17
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
18
governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any
19
cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
20
upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
21
from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
22
See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
23
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
24
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
25
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
26
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
27
1 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal
2 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably
3 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55
4 (9th Cir. 1994).
5 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
6 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
7 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
8 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
9 B. Legal Claims
10 Sabir’s statement of his claim reads in full as follows: “I was extracted from cell
11 and thrown in safety cell (isolation chamber) stripped nude in the prescence [sic] of
12 women while being filmed in the prescence [sic] of female staff i.e. nurses female
13 deputies and civilian personnel and exploited without consent.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 2-
14 3.)
15 “A person deprives another ‘of a constitutional right,’ within the meaning of
16 section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or
17 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of
18 which [the plaintiff complains].” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988)
19 (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). The inquiry into causation
20 is individualized and focuses on the duties and responsibilities of each individual
21 defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation.
22 Id. Defendants cannot be held liable for a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 23 unless they were integral participants in the unlawful conduct. Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d
24 1228, 1241 (9th Cir. 2018).
25 Sabir’s allegations fail to state a claim for relief. He has not provided sufficient
26 factual information, such as the date on which this occurred, the persons who committed
27 these acts (the only defendant he names is the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office), and what
1 allege specific facts tying each specific person to the exact wrong.
2 Further, supervisory defendants are not responsible simply because they are
3 supervisors. There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Taylor v. List, 880 4 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). It is not enough that the supervisor merely has a
5 supervisory relationship over the defendants; the plaintiff must show that the supervisor
6 “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to
7 prevent them.” Id. And supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where
8 the allegations against them are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such allegations do
9 not “plausibly” establish the supervisors’ personal involvement in their subordinates’
10 constitutional wrong. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675-82. Sabir’s naming of the San Franciso
11 Sheriff’s Department as a defendant without adequate facts showing liability is
12 insufficient.
13 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
14 CONCLUSION
15 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file a first amended complaint on or
16 before March 2, 2026. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case
17 number used in this order (25-06662 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED
18 COMPLAINT must be written on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear
19 on this Court’s form, a copy of which will be sent to him. Because an amended complaint
20 completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended
21 complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue.
22 See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate
23 material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file a proper amended complaint
24 by March 2, 2026 may result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil
25 Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
26 Sabir has filed several lawsuits. Many of them are subject to dismissal because
27 mail sent by the Court to Sabir has been returned as undeliverable, Sabir having failed to
1 must file a change of address notice in each of his cases, or they likely will be dismissed
2 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
3 Because Sabir has paid the filing fee, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
4 || DENIED as moot. (Dkt. No. 2.)
5 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions.
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 || Dated: January 21, 2026 . \f CE
□
8 LLIAM H. ORRICK
9 United States District Judge
10
11
a 12

13
14

15
16

17

O
Zz 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28