Robertson v. Doe

Background

Reginald Robertson, identified as a pretrial detainee and proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Doe defendants at Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, California. The operative pleading was his second amended complaint.

Robertson alleged that on January 23, 2020, he was placed in visiting booth #8 for a non-contact visit. After the visit ended, the booth door would not open. He and another inmate allegedly tried for several hours to alert jail staff by pressing a call button, hitting the doors, and yelling. Defendant Alvarez eventually released them at about 10 p.m. Robertson alleged that he lacked restroom access, missed psychotropic and pain medication, and lost recreation time. He also alleged that Defendant Bussell caused the confinement in retaliation for an argument the previous day, during which Robertson had threatened to file an inmate grievance.

Screening and Claims

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires review of prisoner complaints against governmental entities or employees. Under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state law.

The court dismissed Robertson’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Bussell with leave to amend. The court explained that Robertson had not alleged enough facts showing that Bussell caused the incident or knew that Robertson and the other inmate were trapped and failed to respond. Robertson alleged that either Bussell or Kaiser-Nevel might have been in the control booth, which the court found speculative.

The court also dismissed Robertson’s due-process claim against Bussell with leave to amend. The court stated that it was unclear whether the confinement was deliberate or accidental, such as because of a malfunctioning lock. To proceed, Robertson needed to allege facts, not speculation, showing that Bussell personally knew he was trapped and failed to take reasonable steps to address the harm.

The court dismissed with prejudice Robertson’s negligence claims against Alvarez, Ella, Harris, Wong, and Kaiser-Nevel. It held that negligence and gross negligence do not support a § 1983 claim in this prison context because the required showing is deliberate indifference, not negligence alone.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the negligence claims against Alvarez, Ella, Harris, Wong, and Kaiser-Nevel were dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk was directed to terminate those defendants from the action. The retaliation and due-process claims against Bussell were dismissed with leave to amend. Robertson had 28 days from the filing of the order to submit a third amended complaint using the court’s form and case number. The order stated that claims or defendants omitted from that complaint would no longer remain in the case. If Robertson did not timely file the third amended complaint, the action would be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice.