Brewster v. Mills

Background

Cenious Brewster and Augustin Garcia, both identified as inmates at San Francisco County Jail, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that jail correctional officials violated their constitutional rights. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the court to identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Brewster alleged that Deputy Mills repeatedly made sexual slurs toward him and that Deputy Prado watched and laughed without intervening. Brewster also alleged that, after he filed an administrative grievance about Mills’s sexual harassment, Deputy Seng falsely accused him of gassing, causing him to be placed in a safety cell, and Deputy Nguyen wrote him up in retaliation.

Garcia alleged that Mills placed extremely tight handcuffs on him while escorting him to a medical appointment and then made sexually suggestive comments and gestures toward him.

Garcia’s dismissal from the case

The court concluded that having the two self-represented inmates proceed together created case-management problems. Their claims involved different incidents, and the record showed that they already had difficulty communicating. The court also noted that self-represented litigants cannot represent other people in court. It therefore dismissed plaintiff Garcia from this action. The dismissal was without prejudice to Garcia filing a new complaint asserting only his claims.

The court directed the Clerk to send Garcia two complaint forms. It also denied as moot Garcia’s request to proceed without paying filing fees and his request for a court order allowing him to communicate with Brewster. Brewster’s request to proceed without paying filing fees was to be addressed in a separate order.

Brewster’s claims

The court explained that sexual conduct or harassment by prison staff can violate the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, when the conduct is sufficiently harmful and the official acted with intent to harm. But verbal sexual harassment alone does not necessarily violate the Constitution. The court held that Brewster’s allegations of suggestive verbal comments over an unspecified period, together with Prado’s alleged failure to intervene, did not establish an egregious, pervasive, or widespread pattern of sexual harassment.

The court therefore dismissed Brewster’s Eighth Amendment claim against Mills and Prado with leave to amend. If Brewster amended, he was required to provide facts showing how the comments created an egregious, pervasive, or widespread pattern of sexual harassment.

The court found that Brewster’s allegations that Seng falsely accused him of gassing and that Nguyen wrote him up in retaliation for his grievance stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim. That claim was allowed to proceed against Seng and Nguyen.

Other orders

The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and directed the United States Marshal to serve the complaint and order on Seng and Nguyen without requiring advance payment of fees. It required defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 91 days after the order was filed, subject to the procedures stated in the order. The order also addressed briefing deadlines, discovery, service of filings, address updates, and prosecution of the case.

Brewster was required to file any amended complaint within the period set by the order and to list only himself as plaintiff. If he did not amend, the initial complaint would remain operative and Mills and Prado would be dismissed from the action.