Eric X. Murillo v. West County Detention Facility, et al.

Background

Eric Murillo, a detainee at Martinez Detention Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. He had previously been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that a nearby construction site caused excessive noise and an awful smell. He said he filed grievances but was told that construction would continue. According to the complaint, the noise began at 3:55 a.m. and continued until 5:00 p.m., causing discomfort and headaches; he also stated that his headache medication caused sleep deprivation.

Screening standard

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or its employees. At this stage, the court must identify claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under state law.

Because Murillo was described as a pretrial detainee, the court analyzed his conditions-of-confinement allegations under the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against punishment before a formal finding of guilt. The court also discussed cases recognizing constitutional concerns involving constant, excessive noise, sleep deprivation, and inadequate ventilation or air flow.

Why the complaint was dismissed

The court found that Murillo’s allegations were too general and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. For the noise allegations, the court instructed him to provide more information about the kinds of construction noise and how frequently the different noises occurred. For the smell allegations, he needed to describe the smell, explain where any plumbing problems occurred and whether the smell was in his cell or elsewhere in the facility, state how often it was present, and allege facts showing that it undermined detainees’ health.

The court ordered Murillo to file an amended complaint by December 22, 2025. The amended complaint must use the required caption and case number, include the words “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page, be filed on the court’s form, include all claims and defendants he wished to pursue, and not incorporate earlier pleadings by reference. The court warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

Request for appointed counsel

Murillo also requested appointed counsel. The court explained that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in an ordinary civil case. A court may request counsel for a person unable to pay only in exceptional circumstances, considering the likely success of the claims and the person’s ability to present them without a lawyer in light of the legal complexity.

The court concluded that exceptional circumstances were not shown at that time. It found that the case did not present complex legal issues, that Murillo had ably pursued this and other actions, and that it was too early to assess the likelihood of success. The motion to appoint counsel was therefore denied without prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Rita F. Lin denied the motion to appoint counsel without prejudice and dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by December 22, 2025. The opinion also states that, in a concurrent order, the court dismissed a later-filed case as duplicative of this action.