Palmer v. Governor of California

Background

James Dion Palmer filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion says he was formerly an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail. Palmer alleged that he had schizophrenia and received no mental-health treatment or care while at the jail. He also complained that his meals contained little or none of certain vitamins and minerals, that the shower water was unsatisfactory, and that the jail was a poor prison. He mentioned illegal detention, illegal extradition, and a due-process violation that appeared to concern events in British Columbia and Washington, but the court said it was unclear whether those statements were claims or background information.

Palmer requested $11 million in damages, a healthy nutritious diet, tuberculosis and DNA tests, and an acknowledgment of wrongdoing. He also attempted to bring the action for himself and six other people. The court stated that Palmer could represent only himself; any other person wishing to sue would have to file a separate action.

Screening analysis

Because Palmer sought relief from governmental entities or officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court concluded that Palmer had not identified how the Governor, the other named officials, or the San Francisco agencies and jail harmed him. A government official cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because of a supervisory title or because another person allegedly violated the Constitution. The court also explained that an agency may be liable only if an unconstitutional policy or practice caused the injury, and found that Palmer had not identified such a policy or practice.

The court understood Palmer’s allegations about mental-health care, nutrition, and water temperature as possibly asserting deliberate indifference to medical needs, but found that he had not supplied enough facts to state a claim or determine which legal standard applied. The court instructed him to identify the people who harmed him, what each defendant did, the resulting harm, and when the conduct and harm occurred. It also directed him to clarify whether he had been a convicted prisoner, a pretrial detainee, or an arrestee, because different constitutional standards may apply. The court noted that the allegations about detention and extradition outside California were not sufficiently clear to evaluate.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It granted Palmer’s request to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee and assessed an initial partial filing fee of $0.10. Palmer may file a first amended complaint within 35 days from the date the order was filed. The order states that failure to file a proper amended complaint within that period will result in a finding that further leave to amend would be futile and the action will be dismissed. It also states that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).