Koch v. County of Monterey

Background

Mark F. Koch, who is housed at Monterey County Jail, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants included Monterey County; the jail ombudsman and Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator; groups of classification deputies; several named commanders, sergeants, and deputies; and the head sheriff. Koch had been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Koch’s complaint described numerous conditions and incidents at the jail. Among other things, he alleged that officials prevented people from retrieving phone numbers during booking, interfered with legal mail, mishandled or closed grievances, retaliated against him, threatened or endangered him, restricted access to legal materials and forms, failed to provide an accessible shower chair and an orthopedic brace, exposed him to unsafe conditions, provided inadequate medical care, and served unhealthy food. The complaint also referred generally to speech, retaliation, due process, equal protection, deliberate indifference, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and several constitutional amendments.

Screening of the Complaint

Because the action was filed by a person in custody against governmental entities or employees, the court screened it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that self-represented pleadings must be read liberally, but a complaint must still provide more than labels, conclusions, or a general accusation that defendants caused harm.

The court dismissed the complaint because it had several deficiencies. In most instances, it did not link a named defendant to a specific alleged violation or identify the federal law or constitutional provision involved. The court instructed Koch that an amended complaint should state the date and time of each alleged violation, briefly describe what happened, identify the individual defendants involved, and identify the federal law or constitutional provision allegedly violated.

The court also held that Koch could pursue in this action only claims arising from the same transaction, occurrence, or related series of events and sharing a common question of law or fact. It gave inadequate medical treatment and alleged retaliation for filing grievances as examples of claims that arose from different series of events and did not share a common legal or factual question. The court instructed Koch to choose the claims that satisfy the joinder requirements and bring unrelated claims in separate actions.

The court further addressed Koch’s use of group and unidentified defendants. It stated that unknown defendants are generally disfavored because anonymous defendants cannot effectively be served. The court instructed Koch to identify the people he wished to sue by name and to obtain their names before seeking permission to add them. It also explained that § 1983 does not impose liability merely because someone supervised an alleged wrongdoer, and that a violation of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations does not by itself create a private cause of action under § 1983.

Request for Appointed Counsel

Koch asked the court to appoint a lawyer, citing his status as a combat veteran, traumatic brain injuries, mental-health diagnoses, chronic medical conditions, difficulty obtaining care, and fear of retaliation or harm. The court explained that appointment of counsel for a person unable to afford counsel is discretionary and generally requires exceptional circumstances, including consideration of the likely success of the claims and the person’s ability to present them in light of the legal complexity.

Because there was not yet an operative complaint and Koch’s likelihood of success was therefore unclear, the court denied the request for appointed counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances required it.

Disposition

Judge Gilliam ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Koch was required to file an amended complaint within 28 days of the order, using the case caption and number specified by the court and placing the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the prior complaint and must include all claims and defendants Koch wished to pursue. The order warned that failure to file a proper amended complaint within the required time would result in dismissal of the action.