Bailey v. Contra Costa County Jail Medical

Background

Terry R. Bailey filed a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events that occurred while he was incarcerated at a detention facility in Contra Costa County, California. He named only “Contra Costa County Jail Medical” as the defendant.

Bailey alleged that he was healthy when he entered the facility but developed a rash on his scrotum after he began wearing inmate clothing and showering on the M module. He sought treatment over several months. The complaint stated that at least three doctors prescribed at least three treatments, none of which worked. About eight months after the rash appeared, Bailey was sent to another doctor. The opinion does not state whether the ointment prescribed by that doctor was effective. Bailey sought compensation for gross negligence and pain and suffering.

Screening and analysis

Because Bailey was incarcerated and sought relief from a governmental entity, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court concluded that Bailey had not identified a legally recognizable defendant or stated a legally recognizable claim.

As to the defendant, the court explained that a government entity could be liable under § 1983 if an unconstitutional policy caused the violation, but Bailey had not alleged that his injury resulted from an official policy or practice of Contra Costa County Jail Medical. The court stated that Bailey could instead identify an individual who caused his rash or failed to treat it, but § 1983 does not impose liability on an individual merely because that person supervised someone else.

As to the claim, the court held that negligence, including gross negligence, is not actionable under § 1983 in the prison context. The court said Bailey could try to plead deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. That would require allegations showing that a medical provider knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Bailey’s health or safety. Because Bailey appeared to have received treatment, the court also stated that he would need to allege that the chosen treatment was medically unacceptable and selected in conscious disregard of an excessive risk, rather than merely reflecting a disagreement about medical treatment.

Other motions and disposition

The court DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND the complaint because it did not state a cognizable claim against any defendant. Bailey was permitted to file an amended complaint within 35 days of the order. The amended complaint must use the case caption and civil case number stated in the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page.

The court DENIED Bailey’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel because he had not shown exceptional circumstances and had not yet stated a cognizable claim or identified a cognizable defendant.

The court GRANTED Bailey’s motions to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee. It assessed an initial partial filing fee of $10. The order states that additional payments would be deducted from his prisoner trust account under the federal filing-fee statute until the fee was paid.

Judge P. Casey Pitt also directed Bailey to keep the court informed of any address change and warned that failure to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).