Murillo v. West County Detention Facility Medical

Background

Eric Murillo, who was detained at Martinez Detention Facility and represented himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under 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.

Murillo alleged that in May and June 2025 he submitted several requests and grievances asking to change the type of milk he received because it caused stomach pain and diarrhea. He discussed his need for whole milk with a nurse and submitted additional requests. He was later told that medical staff could not help and that he would not be switched to another type of milk. Medical staff advised him to drink water, add water to his cereal, and avoid the milk provided.

Court’s analysis

For a detained person’s claim that medical care violated the Fourteenth Amendment, the court applied an objective deliberate-indifference standard. The plaintiff must allege that the defendant intentionally made a decision about the conditions of confinement; the conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm; the defendant failed to take reasonable available measures to reduce that risk even though the high degree of risk should have been apparent; and that failure caused the injury. The court explained that more than a lack of care is required, but the plaintiff need not prove a subjective intent to harm.

The court found that Murillo’s allegations did not state a legally valid claim because he had not shown that denying whole milk was objectively unreasonable when other fluids were provided. The court directed him to provide more specific information about how the denial of whole milk created a substantial risk of serious harm. It also directed him to identify every defendant involved and explain how each defendant’s actions were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.

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 a court may request counsel for a person proceeding without paying the filing fee only in exceptional circumstances. Murillo argued that the case was complex and that confinement would make it difficult to prosecute. The court concluded that the case did not present complex legal issues, that Murillo had adequately presented his claims and had prosecuted several other actions in that court, and that it was too early to assess his likelihood of success.

Disposition

Judge Rita F. Lin denied the motion to appoint counsel without prejudice. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by January 12, 2026. The amended complaint must use the required caption and case number, state that it is a first amended complaint, use the court’s form, include all claims and defendants Murillo wishes to pursue, and not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference. The court stated that failure to file a proper amended complaint or comply with the order could result in dismissal of the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.