Gordon v. DeLucchi

Background

Terry Gordon, an inmate in Alameda County Jail proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a state court judge, his defense attorney, and two jail deputies. The court screened the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims and Analysis

1. Medical needs and transportation to court: Gordon alleged that unnamed deputies required him to go to court while he was quarantined and recovering from spinal surgery. Because the opinion treated him as a pretrial detainee, the court applied the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against objectively deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court found no facts plausibly showing that requiring him to go to court worsened, endangered, or disregarded his medical needs. Gordon also did not identify the deputies. The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend.

2. Transportation restraints: Gordon alleged that a deputy and a sergeant forced him from his wheelchair onto the floor, handcuffed his wrists and ankles, and caused him substantial pain. The court explained that a pretrial detainee must show that force was purposely or knowingly used and was objectively unreasonable. Gordon did not allege facts about the need for force, his injuries, the officers’ efforts to limit the force, any perceived threat, or whether he resisted. He also did not name the officers. The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend.

3. Courthouse events and attorney confidentiality: Gordon described being forced into a conference room, a court proceeding held in his absence, and grievances he filed. The court found it unclear what legal claim he intended to bring. As to the alleged conference in a confidential attorney booth, he did not allege facts showing a violation of attorney-client confidentiality or privilege, or explain how it harmed his defense. The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend.

4. Alleged assault during transportation: Gordon alleged that an unnamed deputy assaulted him while he was on a bus lift. He did not identify any named defendant as involved and did not describe the circumstances, amount of force, or injuries. The court found that the allegations did not show that the incident was an assault rather than an accident or that the force was excessive. The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend.

5. Deputy Arnold: Gordon alleged that, while he waited outside the jail medical clinic, Deputy Arnold forced him from his wheelchair onto the ground, handcuffed his wrists and ankles, placed a knee on his back, and pushed his head down. Liberally construing the complaint, the court found that these allegations stated a cognizable excessive-force claim. This claim was not dismissed.

6. Deputy Hewison and retaliation: Gordon alleged that Deputy Hewison insisted on transporting him to court despite doctors’ advice that he remain in his cell because of pain, and threatened to handle the situation as officers had previously. The court explained that a retaliation claim requires protected conduct, an adverse action because of that conduct, harm to the exercise of First Amendment rights, and the absence of a legitimate correctional purpose. The court found no authority recognizing a First Amendment right not to follow a court order requiring attendance at court. It therefore dismissed this claim with leave to amend.

Disposition

The court ordered that, except for claim five, the claims were dismissed with leave to amend. Gordon could file an amended complaint by August 13, 2024. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and number specified in the order and include the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. Because an amended complaint replaces the original, Gordon had to include every claim he wished to continue and could not incorporate the original complaint by reference.

The court also stated that failing to amend on time or to correct the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of the claims except claim five. It warned that failing to follow court orders or keep the court informed of an address change could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge Jeffrey White entered the order on July 15, 2024.