Peace v. Wu

Background

Michael Peace, a pretrial detainee at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits claims against people acting under state law for violating federal constitutional or statutory rights. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Peace alleged that on May 15, 2020, Deputy Wu woke him and his cellmates for a walk period that Peace said was scheduled for another shift. After Peace questioned the timing, Wu told him to be quiet, ordered him to place his hands behind his back, and then placed him in a headlock and wrestled him into a metal sink and wall while Peace was attempting to be handcuffed.

Peace also alleged that Captain Tilton allowed deputies to place him in disciplinary housing for 30 days and remove his canteen, telephone, and walk privileges. Peace alleged that a new charge was filed against him but later dropped at his first court appearance. He sought relief under the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and California’s Bane Act.

Screening and Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court held that Peace’s allegations, read liberally, stated a Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim against Deputy Wu. For a pretrial detainee, the relevant question is whether the force purposely or knowingly used was objectively unreasonable. The court also stated that waking Peace at times outside his normal walk schedule, by itself, did not violate the Constitution.

The court held that Peace had also stated a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim against Captain Tilton based on the alleged 30-day disciplinary placement without an evidentiary basis. The court explained that a pretrial detainee may not be punished before a finding of guilt through proper procedures, which generally include notice, time to prepare, a written decision, and supporting evidence.

Claims and Defendant Dismissed

The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim because the complaint did not allege that the challenged conduct was in response to Peace filing or threatening to file a grievance or lawsuit. The complaint also did not allege facts showing that the conduct chilled Peace’s exercise of First Amendment rights.

The court dismissed the California Bane Act claim because the complaint did not allege compliance with the California Government Claims Act’s claims-presentation requirement. The court stated that Peace could file an amended complaint within 30 days if he had presented the required claim, and that any amendment had to allege when the claim was presented and rejected, facts supporting the Bane Act elements, and that he was invoking supplemental federal jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department because the complaint made no allegations against it and § 1983 does not impose liability merely because an entity employs someone who allegedly violated another person’s rights.

Disposition

The court concluded that the complaint stated cognizable § 1983 claims against Deputy Wu and Captain Tilton for violating Peace’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that all other claims and defendants were dismissed. It ordered service of the complaint and order on Wu and Tilton without requiring advance payment of service fees. It also set deadlines for defendants’ dispositive motion, Peace’s opposition, and any reply, and authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order screened the complaint; it did not decide whether Wu or Tilton would ultimately be liable.