Peace v. 850 Bryant Street

Background

Michael Peace, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed a complaint without a lawyer seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that he slipped and fell in a jail shower on September 11, 2018. According to the complaint, the shower was flooded and lacked grip tape, safety mats, and hand railings. Peace alleged injuries to his lower back and tailbone, continuing pain, and inadequate medical attention after the fall. He also alleged that the shower remained unsafe and did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The court reviewed the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That review requires dismissal of a prisoner complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

Section 1983 Claim

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under state law. The court held that Peace’s complaint failed to name a viable defendant. Its only named defendant was the Hall of Justice at 850 Bryant Street, which the court described as a building rather than a legal entity capable of being sued.

The court explained that Peace could name the individual people who allegedly failed to provide adequate medical care or otherwise violated his rights. He would need to identify each defendant and explain what that person did or failed to do. The court also explained that a supervisor could be liable based on personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection, but section 1983 does not impose liability solely because someone supervised another person.

The court directed Peace to state whether he was a convicted prisoner or a pretrial detainee when the events occurred. If he was convicted, a medical-care claim would arise under the Eighth Amendment and require facts showing a serious medical need and deliberate indifference by each defendant. If he was a pretrial detainee, the claim would arise under the Fourteenth Amendment and require facts showing, among other things, that an individual defendant made an intentional decision creating a substantial risk of serious harm, failed to take reasonable measures to reduce that risk, and thereby caused Peace’s injuries.

ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims

The court explained that Title II of the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibit disability discrimination by public entities in their services, programs, or activities. Peace’s allegation that the shower was not ADA-compliant was not enough by itself to state a claim. He had not alleged facts showing that he was an individual with a disability or otherwise establishing a violation of those laws.

The court further explained that the proper defendant for these claims would be the public entity responsible for the alleged discrimination, not a public official sued in an individual capacity. It stated that the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department or the City and County of San Francisco would be the proper entity for such a claim because it runs the jail where the shower was located. The court also stated that Peace could not use section 1983 to enforce rights created by the ADA or Rehabilitation Act against individuals.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Peace was required to file an amended complaint by November 25, 2019, using the caption and civil case number in the order and placing the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The amended complaint had to provide a complete statement of his claims. The court warned that failing to meet the deadline would result in dismissal of the action.