Murillo v. Smally

Background

Eric Murillo, a detainee at Martinez Detention Facility proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of a detainee’s or prisoner’s claims against a governmental entity, officer, or employee.

Murillo alleged that he was moved to a different housing unit in July 2025. The unit’s ADA-accessible showers were in another section. Staff sometimes allowed him to use those showers but sometimes refused. After he filed a grievance, staff told him that the ADA showers in that unit were closed and that he could transfer to another facility. Staff also told him he could use regular showers or transfer to another jail with available ADA showers, but Murillo said the other facility presented a higher risk. He later saw another detainee using the ADA showers. He sought money damages and an order requiring relief, although he was no longer at the facility where the events occurred.

Court’s Analysis

For an ADA claim, the court explained that Murillo needed to allege that he had a disability, was otherwise qualified to receive a public entity’s services, was denied those services or discriminated against, and was denied them because of his disability. Because he sought money damages, he also needed to allege intentional discrimination, which requires deliberate indifference: knowledge that harm to a federally protected right was substantially likely and failure to act after drawing that inference.

The court found the ADA claim deficient because Murillo did not allege that he was an individual with a disability or explain how the denial of the ADA showers was because of his disability. The court also required more information about how many days he was denied access and about intentional discrimination. In addition, Murillo had not identified the proper defendant for a Title II ADA claim. The court stated that the proper defendant is the public entity responsible for the alleged discrimination, not a public official sued in an individual capacity, and that § 1983 cannot be used to enforce rights created by the ADA against individual defendants.

The court also found that Murillo had not stated a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim concerning his conditions of confinement. For a pretrial detainee, the relevant question is whether the conditions amounted to punishment. The court stated that punishment requires both harm to the detainee and an intent to punish, and found that Murillo had not alleged how the shower incident constituted punishment. The court allowed him to address these deficiencies in an amended complaint.

Request for Appointed Counsel

Murillo also requested appointed counsel. The court explained that there is no constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case and that counsel may be requested for an indigent litigant only in exceptional circumstances, considering the likelihood of success and the litigant’s ability to present the claims without a lawyer. The court found that the case did not present complex legal issues, that Murillo had ably prosecuted this case and other actions in the court, and that it was too early to assess his likelihood of success. The motion to appoint counsel was denied without prejudice.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint by December 22, 2025. The court required the amended complaint to use the specified caption and civil case number, state “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, use the court’s form, include all claims and defendants Murillo wished to pursue, and not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference. The court stated that failure to comply could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The motion to appoint counsel was denied without prejudice.