Dunbar v. Alameda County Sheriff's Office

Background

Eddie Lamar Dunbar, identified as a California state prisoner, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at the Alameda County Jail. The court had previously dismissed his complaint with leave to amend, and Dunbar filed a First Amended Complaint. Because the action was brought by a prisoner against governmental defendants, the court screened the pleading under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also said that it would read a self-represented litigant’s pleading liberally, while still requiring facts sufficient to make a claim plausible.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court found cognizable claims—claims that could proceed past screening—concerning unsanitary jail conditions against defendants Jones, Smith, Hellfrick, Simon, and Pereira. The court characterized those claims as alleging violations of Dunbar’s Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights. The court also found cognizable Hellfrick’s alleged retaliation against Dunbar for filing complaints, characterizing that claim as arising under the First Amendment.

Claims Dismissed

The court ruled that Jones’s alleged destruction or deprivation of property did not state a due-process claim under § 1983 because California provided an adequate state remedy after the alleged deprivation.

The court dismissed without prejudice the claims against DeLeon for forgery, against Procopio, Formosa, and Calegari concerning grievance handling, and concerning unsafe yard conditions that were not connected to a named defendant. The court said these claims involved different transactions and different defendants, so they were not properly joined with the other claims. “Without prejudice” means the order did not bar Dunbar from bringing those claims in a separate action.

The court also dismissed the claims against California Forensic Medical Group, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Aramark Correctional Services, and the Warden of Santa Rita County Jail because the First Amended Complaint made no allegations against them. The order did not state that this dismissal was without prejudice.

Order and Case Status

Judge William Alsup directed the clerk to issue summonses and the U.S. Marshal to serve the First Amended Complaint and the order, without requiring advance payment of fees, on Deputy Smith, Deputy M. Simon, Deputy R. Pereira, Deputy K. Jones, and Deputy Hellfrick. The remaining defendants were required to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order also set deadlines for a possible summary-judgment or other case-ending motion, opposition, and reply, and permitted discovery under the federal rules.

The order was an initial screening and service order, not a final decision on whether Dunbar would ultimately prevail on the claims allowed to proceed.