Eaves v. Alameda County Sheriff Department

Background

Shelton Eaves, who was incarcerated in the Alameda County Jail, filed a self-represented complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Alameda County Sheriff Department and R. Slaughter. He challenged the conditions of his confinement.

Eaves alleged that, at about 1:00 a.m. on July 7, 2020, an inmate with symptoms of COVID-19 fell from his cell and hit his head. Blood reached the cell floor and the hallway. According to Eaves, jail officials did not have the blood cleaned until about 9:00 a.m., when professional cleaners wearing protective “hazmat” equipment arrived. Eaves did not allege that he shared the cell, lived nearby, or came into contact with the blood. He claimed that leaving the blood there threatened his safety and violated his constitutional rights.

Court’s analysis

The court evaluated the allegations under the standard for a pretrial detainee’s constitutional claim that jail officials failed to protect him from unsafe conditions. That type of claim requires allegations that the defendant intentionally chose the confinement condition, the condition created a substantial risk of serious harm, the defendant failed to take reasonable measures despite the obvious risk, and that failure caused the plaintiff’s injury. The conduct must be objectively unreasonable—meaning unreasonable under the circumstances.

The court found that Eaves did not allege the required injury. He did not claim that he contracted COVID-19 or suffered any other injury, and fear of possible injury was not enough. The court also found that he did not allege a substantial risk of serious harm because he did not allege that he, staff, or other inmates were allowed to contact or remain near the blood before it was cleaned. He cited no evidence that blood from someone infected with COVID-19 could transmit the virus without contact.

Finally, the court found that the allegations showed reasonable conduct rather than deliberate indifference. If the blood could transmit COVID-19, jail employees who cleaned it without proper equipment could have been exposed and could have spread the disease. Waiting for professional cleaners with suitable equipment and training was therefore reasonable under the allegations. The court concluded that the claim failed.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Eaves had 28 days from the filing of the order to file an amended complaint in good faith. The amended complaint had to use the required caption and civil case number and state “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. Because an amended complaint replaces the original, it had to include all claims Eaves wished to pursue and could not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court stated that failure to amend as ordered would result in dismissal of the case.