Swanson v. County of Contra Costa

Background

Jesse Swanson, a pretrial detainee housed at Martinez Detention Facility, filed this self-represented lawsuit over alleged treatment of bloody bowel movements and rectal bleeding. The earlier complaints asserted claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, the California Bane Act, California Government Code section 845.6, and state-law negligence. The court had previously dismissed several claims and allowed Swanson to amend his Fourteenth Amendment claim.

The second amended complaint alleged that medical staff failed to respond adequately to his requests for care, failed to prescribe medication, and failed to prioritize treatment that Swanson believed could have slowed the progression of ulcerative colitis. It also alleged that nurses required him to drink two gallons of GoLytely before a colonoscopy, that nurses mishandled medication and medical waste, that a nurse failed to file a medical request, that another changed the category of a grievance, and that Dr. Brett Curtis created a false medical record. The second amended complaint named doctors Jessica Standish, Elizabeth Hollandberry, Lili Wang, and Brett Curtis, along with nurses identified in the opinion by first names.

Motion to dismiss

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. For a pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment medical-care claim, the court explained that the complaint had to plausibly allege an intentional decision, a substantial risk of serious harm, objectively unreasonable conduct, and injury caused by that conduct.

The court held that the second amended complaint did not identify the medication or other medical assistance that was needed but not provided, or explain how the alleged failures caused ulcerative colitis to progress. The complaint also acknowledged that Swanson was examined by physicians in May and June 2020, had a colonoscopy scheduled, and was monitored by deputies and nurses. The court concluded that the allegations against nurses Jackie, Malora, Andrea, Severa, Lizelle, Samira, and Kurjinder did not show that their individual failures to respond placed Swanson at substantial risk of serious harm.

The court further held that the allegations against Hollandberry and Wang did not state a claim because Swanson did not identify the medication that should have been prescribed. The allegations against nurses Stephanie, Gabriel, Jen, and Dan concerning the two gallons of GoLytely did not plausibly show a substantial risk of serious harm. The allegations against Valerie and Karima concerning a medical request and grievance categorization did not show a serious medical risk, and the court stated that violating jail regulations or denying access to an effective grievance process does not by itself violate a federally protected right. The allegations against Mark and Megan did not show substantial risk or injury and concerned events unrelated to the medical-care claims. The court dismissed the claim against Curtis with prejudice, reasoning that the alleged false report concerned treatment in 2014 and was not plausibly connected to the alleged medical-care failures in 2020.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment claims and stated that the dismissal was with prejudice because Swanson had repeatedly failed to correct the deficiencies after prior opportunities to amend.

Remaining state-law claim

After dismissing the federal claims, the only remaining claim was that Curtis violated California Business and Professions Code section 2266 by creating a false medical record. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that state-law claim because it had dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction. The court also noted that the claim likely failed as a matter of law and stated that alleged violations of the Medical Practice Act are enforced by the Medical Board of California.

Proposed third amended complaint and other filings

The court construed Swanson’s proposed third amended complaint as a request for leave to amend and denied that request. It found that the proposal did not cure the previously identified defects, was vague and conclusory, and improperly combined unrelated medical-treatment claims with claims concerning the Pigeonly mail system and legal mail. The court stated that any claims concerning the mail policy had to be brought in a separate action. Because leave to amend was denied, the court denied the defendants’ motion to strike the proposed complaint as moot.

The court treated the request for appointment of counsel as moot in light of the dismissal of the action. It directed the clerk to send Swanson two copies of the civil-rights complaint form. The court granted the motion to dismiss, denied leave to file the proposed third amended complaint, denied the motion to strike as moot, directed entry of judgment for the defendants, and closed the case.