Johnson v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department

Background

Kalann Johnson, a detainee in the San Francisco County Jail, filed a self-represented civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and San Francisco Police Department. The court states that Johnson’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee was granted in a separate order.

Johnson alleged that they needed medical care from a surgical specialist after treatment for a staph infection in a finger, as well as physical therapy to regain full mobility. Johnson also alleged that 12 deputies attacked them after an attempted rape and sexual assault in the transgender housing dormitory’s A-pod, reopening finger lacerations and causing a loose tooth. Johnson further alleged that they were being held in 24-hour lockdown in male housing, with no out-of-cell programming and separation from the transgender community.

Johnson sought access to recreation, an order requiring all alleged assailants to stay away, medical care, and damages.

Screening and Claims

Because Johnson is a detainee seeking relief from government entities, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings must be read liberally.

The court concluded that, when read liberally, Johnson stated claims that could proceed under the Fourteenth or Eighth Amendment, depending on whether Johnson was a pretrial or post-conviction jail detainee. The possible claims concerned deliberate indifference to health and safety, excessive force, and inadequate out-of-cell time. The order recognized these claims as legally sufficient at the screening stage; it did not decide whether Johnson’s allegations were true or whether Johnson would ultimately prevail.

Rulings and Case Schedule

The court construed the complaint as requesting preliminary injunctive relief, meaning an order sought while the case is pending. It ordered the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to respond to Johnson’s requests for injunctive relief by September 16, 2025. It also ordered the defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within 21 days.

The San Francisco Police Department was dismissed as a defendant because Johnson made no allegations concerning it. The Clerk was directed to send the lawsuit and service-waiver materials to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office. The order also set procedures for any dispositive motion, including summary judgment, and allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The order cautioned Johnson to serve court communications on the defendant, keep the court informed of any address change, prosecute the case, and comply with deadlines and court orders. The order was signed by United States District Judge Vince Chhabria on August 27, 2025.