Hopkins v. Ahern

Background

Keith M. Hopkins filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. He alleged that the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department housed him in constitutionally inappropriate conditions at Santa Rita Jail from 2016 through 2018 while he was a “pre-trial defendant under federal custody.” He sought monetary damages.

Hopkins named Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, California Forensic Medical Group, Nurse Magat, ACSO Deputies Lincoln and Covingtonis, ACSO Sergeant Stuart, ACSO Captain Skoldvist, and unnamed ACSO jail officials identified as “Does 1-30.” His 29-page amended complaint asserted multiple claims, including alleged denial or interruption of medical treatment, due-process violations, retaliation, Eighth Amendment violations, and negligence.

Hopkins alleged that he had chronic sleep apnea requiring a continuous positive airway pressure machine whenever he slept. Because the general-population housing units lacked electrical outlets, he alleged that he had to sleep in the Out-Patient Housing Unit. He further alleged that he was not escorted there for treatment on November 7, 2017, and March 4, 2018, and that unidentified medical-staff supervisors did not ensure that the problem would not happen again.

Screening and pleading deficiencies

The court conducted the required preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That review requires a court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek monetary relief from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.

The court found several deficiencies:

- The complaint covered many different incidents involving 23 defendants over approximately three years. The court ruled that Hopkins could include only claims arising from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences and presenting common questions of law or fact. - Hopkins did not provide enough information to determine whether each claim had been exhausted through Santa Rita’s administrative grievance process, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court said he could amend to explain whether he exhausted each claim before filing the action. - The allegations concerning missed escorts for sleep-apnea treatment did not clearly identify the responsible individuals or the dates on which treatment was denied or interrupted. - The complaint did not adequately state a claim against Alameda County, California Forensic Medical Group, or Ahern in his official capacity. The court explained that a government entity is not liable merely because it employs someone accused of wrongdoing; Hopkins needed to allege facts showing an official policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional violation. - Hopkins needed to identify what each individual defendant did or failed to do, rather than referring generally to “the defendants” or jail staff. - If Hopkins used unnamed Doe defendants, he had to describe the steps taken to identify them and allege the specific conduct, date, and resulting injury for each Doe defendant. The court stated that it would not investigate their identities. - The allegations against Ahern in his individual capacity were insufficient because a supervisor is not liable solely based on a supervisory relationship. Hopkins needed to allege personal involvement, direction, knowledge followed by failure to act, or a sufficient causal connection to the alleged violation.

Disposition and required amendment

The court ordered that Hopkins’s amended complaint be DISMISSED with leave to amend. The court did not decide whether Hopkins’s underlying constitutional, medical-treatment, retaliation, or negligence claims were ultimately valid. Instead, it allowed him to file a second amended complaint that must be simple, concise, and direct; state each claim in a separate numbered paragraph; identify each defendant’s specific actions or omissions; identify the injury from each claim; explain exhaustion as to each claim and defendant; and include only properly joined claims.

The court ordered Hopkins to file the second amended complaint within 28 days, using the required civil-rights form. It stated that the second amended complaint would replace the earlier complaints and could not incorporate them by reference. The court further stated that failing to file the second amended complaint by the deadline or failing to correct the listed deficiencies would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to send Hopkins a blank civil-rights form and a copy of the order.