Llewellyn v. San Mateo County

Background

Scott William Llewellyn alleged that on May 25, 2024, he slipped and fell at the San Mateo County Jail and had a seizure. Other prisoners allegedly sounded an alarm and yelled for assistance, but Correctional Officer Lopez allegedly did not respond for eight to ten minutes. Llewellyn also alleged that Lopez and Correctional Sergeant Wallace failed to respect their slogan of preserving life. The complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims for violations of federal rights by a person acting under state law.

Screening and Claims

Because Llewellyn sought relief from governmental defendants, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to identify claims that were legally cognizable and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. Reading the self-represented complaint liberally, the court held that Llewellyn stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Lopez based on the alleged delay in responding to the medical alarm.

The court dismissed with prejudice all other claims and defendants. It stated that no claim was stated against Wallace because the allegations identified Lopez, not Wallace, as the officer who failed to respond. The court also dismissed San Mateo County because the complaint did not allege that the county had a policy that was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation. A county cannot be held responsible under § 1983 solely because one of its employees allegedly acted unlawfully.

Order

The court ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and directed the United States Marshal to serve Lopez, without requiring prepayment of fees, with the operative complaint and the order. Lopez must file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claim by July 1, 2025. If Lopez argues that Llewellyn failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, that argument must be presented in a summary-judgment motion. The order also set deadlines for Llewellyn’s opposition and Lopez’s reply, allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and provided instructions concerning communications with the court, extensions of time, and opposing any future summary-judgment motion.