Roberts v. Jayson

Background

Deshaun Roberts alleged that San Francisco Sheriff’s Deputy Alex Jayson physically attacked him at San Francisco County Jail #5 on April 18, 2019. Roberts alleged that Jayson pushed him toward his cell, punched him in the face and body, and struck his stomach with his knees while he was on the ground. Roberts alleged that he did not resist. Jayson allegedly contended that he used physical control because Roberts verbally and physically resisted orders.

Roberts’s complaint asserted claims involving a Fourth Amendment violation, battery, violation of California’s Bane Act, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, and negligence. The opinion states that Roberts’s claim under Section 910 of the California Government Code against the City and County of San Francisco was rejected in June 2019. In this order, Sheriff Vicki Hennessey moved to dismiss the negligence-related claims against her. Roberts also moved to appoint his aunt, Jasmine Robinson, as guardian ad litem.

Negligent hiring, supervision, and retention

The court held that Roberts failed to allege a claim against Hennessey for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention. Under the California authority discussed by the court, an individual employee generally cannot be liable to third parties for these claims without a “special relationship.” Roberts argued that Hennessey’s control over jail inmates created such a relationship and a duty to protect him from harm, including a duty concerning the selection, retention, training, and supervision of employees.

The court rejected that argument. It stated that neither the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit nor the California Supreme Court recognizes a special relationship between a sheriff and a jail inmate. The court also found that Roberts’s allegations were conclusory and did not establish Hennessey’s liability. The motion to dismiss this claim was GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE.

Negligence

Roberts’s separate negligence claim broadly named all defendants but did not identify conduct by Hennessey. The court understood Roberts to be attempting to hold Hennessey vicariously liable for Jayson’s alleged conduct. Roberts’s opposition relied on Section 844.6(d) of the California Government Code, but the court stated that this was not the proper form of the claim and that the relevant California authorities did not extend that provision to make a sheriff vicariously liable for injury to a prisoner.

The court therefore ruled that this claim failed as a matter of law. The motion to dismiss this claim was GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE.

Guardian ad litem

Robinson consented under oath to serve as Roberts’s guardian ad litem, and stated that Roberts had been adjudicated mentally incompetent to stand trial by the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Although that decision was not attached to the motion, the court relied on Robinson’s sworn representations that Roberts was mentally incompetent to represent his own interests in the action, had no other general guardian, and that she accepted the responsibility.

The motion to appoint Robinson as Roberts’s guardian ad litem was GRANTED. The court directed that future filings revise the caption to comply with the order.

Disposition

The court concluded that the motion to dismiss was GRANTED to the extent described above, and that the motion to appoint a guardian ad litem was GRANTED. The order was signed by Judge William Alsup.