Koch v. County of Monterey

Background

Mark F. Koch filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of an action in which a prisoner seeks relief from a governmental entity or its officers or employees.

The original complaint named Monterey County and various county jail correctional officers. It listed concerns about Koch's incarceration, including access to phone numbers from his cellphone at booking, legal mail, the grievance system, retaliation, harassment, access to the book room and legal research, an accessible shower chair and other items, mold, medication, and food. The court dismissed that complaint with leave to amend because it did not connect particular defendants to alleged constitutional violations or identify the federal law or constitutional provision allegedly violated by each action or omission. The court also found that the complaint violated the rule governing when multiple defendants and claims may be joined in one case.

Amended Complaint

The amended complaint named Monterey County as the sole defendant. Koch alleged that, when he was booked into the county jail on October 1, 2024, correctional officials refused to let him access phone numbers stored on his cellphone. He alleged that this prevented him from contracting with an attorney to defend himself and from contracting with a shelter to care for his Veterans Administration service animal. He further alleged that his dog was killed at the local animal shelter.

Koch alleged that the refusal violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which protects against racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts, and violated the Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Court's Analysis

The court held that the amended complaint did not state a claim under § 1981. According to the complaint, Monterey County had a general policy barring all people being booked into custody from accessing phone numbers on their cellphones. The court reasoned that a policy applying to everyone does not allege racial discrimination.

The court also held that the complaint did not state a claim under the Eighth, Thirteenth, or Fourteenth Amendments. It explained that Koch had not shown how the booking policy violated those amendments, and that the policy did not appear to violate them. The court further noted that Koch had previously been told that labels and conclusions, without supporting factual allegations, were insufficient, but had not corrected that problem.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, entered judgment in favor of Monterey County and against Koch, and directed the clerk to close the case.