Palmer v. Alameda County

Background

Marty Palmer alleged that he was incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail between August 7 and August 28, 2017, and that he suffered renal failure requiring dialysis three days a week. According to the second amended complaint, Deputy Joseph Robert Bailey and other sheriff’s deputies knew about Palmer’s condition but repeatedly denied his requests for a lower bunk. Palmer alleged that, after deputies moved him to another jail pod and assigned him to another upper bunk, he fell and suffered severe injuries to his face, neck, and shoulder areas.

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

Fourteenth Amendment claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss Palmer’s § 1983 claim. Section 1983 provides a cause of action for constitutional violations by people acting under state law. Palmer alleged that Bailey knew about his serious medical condition, denied his repeated requests for a lower bunk, and placed or kept him in an upper bunk despite the risks.

As to Ahern, Palmer alleged that Ahern knew or reasonably should have known about the alleged conduct, failed to train or supervise Bailey, and acquiesced in the conduct through inaction. The court held that these allegations stated a valid supervisory-liability claim under § 1983. The court therefore denied the motion as to Palmer’s § 1983 claim.

Negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim

The court also denied the motion as to Palmer’s 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, violent, sadistic, and abusive, and failed to train and supervise him. The court found these allegations sufficient at the pleading stage.

The court granted the motion as to Palmer’s negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim against Alameda County and dismissed that claim without leave to amend. It relied on California Government Code section 844.6, which generally prevents a public entity from being liable for an injury to a prisoner, and noted that Palmer did not allege facts bringing the claim within the statutory exception for failing to summon immediate medical care.

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 court ordered all defendants to answer the second amended complaint within 14 days and scheduled a case-management conference.