Jane Doe v. County of San Mateo

Background

Tannaz Jabbari, without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action against County of San Mateo, San Mateo County Sheriff Carlos Bolanos, and unidentified defendants. The court had granted her permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and then reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Jabbari alleged that during booking as a pretrial detainee, jail personnel used force to scan her temperature, twisted and injured her arms and hands, removed her glasses, and did not provide requested medical care or photographs of her injuries. She also alleged that jail personnel placed her in a cell with a nonworking phone, denied or delayed phone access and arraignment hearings because she would not submit to a temperature check or COVID-19 test, and placed her in lockdown.

Jabbari further alleged that a nurse denied her access to medical care unless she wore a mask, which she said conflicted with her religious beliefs and posed a health risk. She alleged that she did not receive medical treatment until the eighth day and that, during lockdown, she became ill and was denied a blanket. Her charges were withdrawn at a later arraignment, and she was released.

Screening standard

Under § 1915, the court must dismiss a complaint filed by someone proceeding without paying the filing fee if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or shows a complete defense on its face. The complaint must allege facts that plausibly show each defendant’s liability and must provide a short and plain statement of the claim. The court must read an unrepresented person’s complaint liberally but may not add facts that the complaint does not allege.

Section 1983 claims

A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state law. Jabbari asserted several theories, including excessive force; denial of phone access; denial of an arraignment without unnecessary delay; denial of access to courts and counsel; inadequate medical care; denial of the right to refuse medical treatment; and denial of due process in a disciplinary proceeding.

The court held that these § 1983 allegations were sufficient to pass the initial § 1915 screening. It specifically relied on allegations that unidentified defendants used force during the temperature scan, that a nurse conditioned assistance on wearing a mask, and that the County and Sheriff Bolanos authorized or maintained policies affecting Jabbari’s arraignment, phone access, and confinement based on her refusal to submit to COVID-19 procedures. The court emphasized that this finding applied only to the initial screening and did not prevent the defendants from later moving to dismiss.

Section 1985(3) claim

The court held that Jabbari’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) did not survive screening. That statute requires an allegation of racial or other class-based discrimination, and the court found that Jabbari had not made such an allegation.

Order

The court gave Jabbari until August 16, 2021, to file an amended complaint. She could either add allegations supporting the § 1985(3) claim or eliminate that claim. The amended complaint had to stand on its own and include all defendants, claims, and factual allegations she wished to pursue. If she removed the § 1985(3) claim, the court stated that it would order service of the amended complaint containing the § 1983 claims. If she amended and retained the § 1985(3) claim, the court would screen that claim again.