Palmer v. Alameda County

Background

Marty Palmer alleged that he was incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail from August 7 through August 28, 2017, while receiving dialysis treatments for renal failure. He alleged that sheriff’s deputies knew about his medical condition and repeated requests for a lower bunk but assigned him to upper bunks. After deputies moved him to another upper bunk, Palmer fell and suffered serious injuries to his face, neck, and shoulder areas.

Palmer asserted four types of relief or claims in his amended complaint: a constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all defendants; a negligence claim; a negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim against Sheriff Gregory Ahern; and requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. Alameda County and Sheriff Ahern filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint did not adequately plead the claims against them.

Constitutional claim

The court granted the motion as to Alameda County without leave to amend. Palmer stated in his opposition that he was not asserting a municipal-liability claim against the County. Municipal liability under § 1983 requires allegations that a government policy or custom caused the constitutional violation.

The court granted the motion as to Sheriff Ahern with leave to amend. Palmer alleged generally that “Defendants” knew about his medical condition and acted with deliberate indifference, but he did not allege facts showing Ahern’s personal involvement, a sufficient causal connection, or that Ahern acquiesced in the alleged constitutional deprivation. The court also noted that Palmer did not address the defendants’ argument about Ahern in his opposition.

Negligence claim

The court granted the motion as to Alameda County without leave to amend. Palmer stated that he was not asserting a negligence claim against the County.

The court granted the motion as to Sheriff Ahern with leave to amend. The complaint alleged generally that “Defendants” owed Palmer a duty of care, but it did not include facts specifically connecting Ahern to the alleged negligence. The court also noted that Palmer’s opposition focused on the separate negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim rather than this general negligence claim.

Negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim

The court granted the motion with leave to amend. Palmer alleged that Bailey was unfit to work as a deputy, that Ahern knew this, and that Ahern’s hiring, supervision, and retention of Bailey caused Palmer’s injuries. The court found these allegations conclusory because Palmer provided no facts about Ahern’s hiring practices, Bailey’s particular risk or hazard, or facts showing that Ahern knew or should have known Bailey was incompetent, careless, or likely to injure someone.

Declaratory and injunctive relief

The court granted the motion to dismiss Palmer’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief without leave to amend. The defendants argued that Palmer had not plausibly alleged a likelihood of future harm and lacked standing based on the allegations that he had been released from Santa Rita Jail and currently resided in Oakland. Palmer responded that he was dismissing these requests.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss as follows:

- Palmer’s § 1983 claim was dismissed without leave to amend as to Alameda County and with leave to amend as to Sheriff Ahern. - Palmer’s negligence claim was dismissed without leave to amend as to Alameda County and with leave to amend as to Sheriff Ahern. - Palmer’s negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim was dismissed with leave to amend. - Palmer’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were dismissed without leave to amend.

The court stated that any amended complaint had to be filed by November 21, 2019.