Palmer v. Alameda County

Background

Marty Palmer alleged that he was incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail between August 7 and August 28, 2017. He alleged that he had renal failure and received dialysis three days a week. According to the second amended complaint, Deputy Joseph Robert Bailey and other sheriff’s deputies knew about Palmer’s medical condition but assigned him to an upper bunk despite his repeated requests for a lower bunk.

Palmer alleged that he temporarily obtained another inmate’s lower bunk, but Bailey and other deputies moved him to another jail housing area and assigned him to another upper bunk after seeing him use the lower bunk. Palmer alleged that he later fell from that upper bunk and injured his face, neck, and shoulder areas.

The second amended complaint asserted three claims: a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Bailey and Sheriff Gregory Ahern for violating Palmer’s Fourteenth Amendment rights; a negligence claim against Bailey; and a claim against Alameda County and Ahern for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. The County and Ahern moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Civil-rights claim

The court held that Palmer stated a sufficient § 1983 claim against Ahern. Palmer alleged that Ahern knew or reasonably should have known that Bailey was requiring Palmer to use an upper bunk despite his serious medical condition, and that Ahern acquiesced through inaction and inadequate supervision.

The court explained that a supervisor may be liable under § 1983 for personal involvement, a sufficient causal connection to the constitutional violation, culpable action or inaction in training or supervision, acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct, or reckless or callous indifference to rights. Based on Palmer’s allegations, the court found that he stated a valid supervisory-liability claim. The court therefore denied the motion as to Palmer’s § 1983 claim.

Negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim

The court also found that Palmer stated a sufficient negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim against Ahern. Palmer alleged that Ahern used deficient hiring and screening practices, knew or should have known that Bailey was incompetent and abusive, failed to train and supervise Bailey, and thereby contributed to Palmer’s injuries. The court denied the motion as to this claim against Ahern.

The court reached a different result for Alameda County. California Government Code section 844.6 generally prevents a public entity from being liable for an injury to a prisoner, subject to an exception for certain failures to summon immediate medical care. The court found that Palmer had not alleged that he needed immediate care or that a County employee failed to summon such care. The court granted the motion as to the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim against the County and dismissed that claim without leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss as to Palmer’s claim against Alameda County for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. It denied the motion as to all other claims. The defendants were ordered to answer the second amended complaint within 14 days, and the court scheduled a case-management conference.

Judge

The order was signed by Thomas S. Hixson, United States Magistrate Judge.