Rich v. Pereira
- Edward Chen
- 3:18-cv-06266
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 21
In Rich v. Pereira, Judge Chen partly granted and partly denied defendants’ motion, dismissing some claims while allowing others to continue.
Albert E. Rich’s federal civil-rights claims and state-law tort claims were affected, as were Alameda County, Sheriff-Coroner Gregory J. Ahern, and the named deputy sheriffs. Some claims were dismissed, while the failure-to-intervene and inadequate-medical-care claims could proceed against Deputies Pereira and Gainer.
What happened
Rich v. Pereira concerns Albert E. Rich’s lawsuit over his alleged assault while he was detained before trial. He alleged that Alameda County deputies used excessive force, failed to intervene, covered up the incident, and failed to provide medical care.
The court ruled that Rich’s prison grievances were enough to exhaust most of his federal civil-rights claims, but not his equal-protection and conspiracy claims. It dismissed his claims against several deputies, his municipal-liability, supervisory-liability, and cover-up claims without prejudice, and his state-law claims with prejudice for failure to comply with California’s Government Claims Act.
Judge Edward M. Chen denied dismissal of Rich’s failure-to-intervene and inadequate-medical-care claims, but said those claims could proceed only against Deputies Pereira and Gainer. The court also denied Rich’s request for additional exhaustion-related discovery.
The detailed version
- Rich v. Pereira · No. 3:18-cv-06266
- Edward Chen
- June 22, 2020
Background
Albert E. Rich sued Alameda County, Sheriff-Coroner Gregory J. Ahern, and numerous Alameda County deputy sheriffs. Rich alleged that deputies assaulted him on April 20, 2018, while he was being moved to and from court as a pretrial detainee. He alleged that Deputy Gainer grabbed and twisted his arm, pushed his face toward a table, and that deputies punched, kicked, and struck him. He also alleged that deputies failed to obtain medical care, covered up the incident, and acted pursuant to County and sheriff policies or customs.
Rich’s first amended complaint asserted claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and violations of California’s Bane Act. Defendants moved for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and moved to dismiss several claims for insufficient pleading.
Exhaustion and summary judgment
The court held that Rich’s grievances gave sufficient notice of his federal claims involving the alleged assault, including excessive force, failure to intervene, cover-up, and inadequate medical care. The grievances identified Deputies Pereira and Gainer and indicated that other deputies might also have been involved. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the remaining Section 1983 claims based on failure to exhaust.
The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Rich’s Section 1983 equal-protection and conspiracy claims because his grievances did not refer, expressly or impliedly, to race discrimination or conspiracy. The court also denied Rich’s request to conduct additional discovery concerning exhaustion.
Motions to dismiss
The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice as to Deputies Gaston, Guichard, Durmisevic, and Sorensen because the first amended complaint and grievances contained no specific allegations concerning them.
The court granted the motion to dismiss Rich’s municipal-liability claim against Alameda County without prejudice. It found that his allegations that excessive force was commonplace and customarily undertaken were too conclusory, but allowed an opportunity to allege additional facts supporting a County policy or custom. The court also granted the motion to dismiss Sheriff Ahern’s supervisory-liability claim without prejudice because the complaint did not adequately allege his personal participation or facts showing deficient training or supervision.
The court denied the motion to dismiss the failure-to-intervene claim, but held that the claim was cognizable only against Deputies Pereira and Gainer. It granted the motion to dismiss the cover-up claim without prejudice while the underlying claims remained pending. The court denied the motion to dismiss the inadequate-medical-care claim, finding that the complaint, read together with Rich’s grievances, sufficiently alleged that he did not receive needed medical attention.
The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all of Rich’s state-law tort claims with prejudice. It held that Rich had not complied with California’s Government Claims Act, which required him to present his claims to the public entity within the required period, and that his jail grievances did not satisfy that requirement. The order disposed of Docket No. 66. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order.
Read the full 21-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.