Tamrat v. Singh

Background

Herman Tamrat, a pretrial detainee at San Francisco County Jail #2, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while proceeding without a lawyer. He alleged that Deputy H. Singh used excessive force on July 6, 2024, after Tamrat reached his arm through a food tray slot, and that Deputy Theodoris failed to intervene. Tamrat alleged that Singh grabbed and twisted his wrist and arm and struck his wrist against the slot’s steel edges. He also alleged that defendants denied him medical care after the incident, but acknowledged that Theodoris summoned medical personnel for an X-ray. Tamrat additionally asserted First Amendment retaliation and California claims for negligence, the Bane Act, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery. He sought damages.

Claims the court allowed to proceed

Applying the preliminary screening required for prisoner complaints, the court concluded that Tamrat stated a Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim against Singh. Because Tamrat was a pretrial detainee, the relevant question was whether the force Singh purposely or knowingly used was objectively unreasonable. The court also found a Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-intervene claim against Theodoris.

The court further found that Tamrat stated cognizable state-law claims against Singh for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of California’s Bane Act, assault, and battery. The court ordered the Clerk to send the complaint and service materials to Singh and Theodoris and to send copies to the San Francisco City Attorney.

Claims the court did not allow to proceed

The court found that Tamrat had not stated a medical-care claim because his allegations indicated that he received medical care relatively promptly and did not allege an injury caused by delay. The court also found that he had not stated a First Amendment claim because he did not allege conduct protected by the First Amendment. The opinion does not state that these claims were dismissed in a separate formal disposition; it identifies them as claims Tamrat had not stated during screening.

Motion for injunctive relief

Tamrat sought an injunction against the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and the Prisoner Legal Services department based on alleged denial of access to the courts. The court denied the motion because Tamrat had not identified an immediate injury, the proposed entities were not defendants in this case, and the request to add them and related claims did not satisfy the federal joinder rules. The court also stated that the request was moot because Tamrat had been released from jail custody.

Motion to stay

Tamrat asked the court to stay this case and his other civil cases because he had been released from county jail and was homeless or transient. The court denied the stay because no deadlines were then pending and service and defendants’ responses would be occurring over the following months. The court stated that Tamrat could request an extension for a specific filing and must inform the court of his new address when he has one.

Disposition

The court ordered service of the complaint on Singh and Theodoris, denied the motion for injunctive relief, denied the motion to stay, and set procedures for defendants’ answers, possible dispositive motions, discovery, and future filings. This order screened the complaint and allowed specified claims to proceed; it did not decide whether Tamrat would ultimately prevail on those claims.