Prasad v. Bolanos

Background

Kevin Prasad, a pretrial detainee at Maple Street Correctional Center, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His amended complaint named San Mateo County Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, San Mateo County Undersheriff Mark C. Robbins, San Mateo County Assistant Sheriff John W. Munsey, San Mateo County Captain Kristina Bell, and San Mateo County Lieutenant John Kovach as defendants.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, some inmates were allowed face-to-face visits. In March 2020, San Mateo County canceled visits in response to Governor Newsom’s stay-at-home order. After a June 2020 inmate hunger strike concerning commissary prices and canceled visits, the jail replaced its Renovo video-visiting system with the Smart Jail Mail Video Visiting System. The replacement system allowed remote visits if visitors had compatible hardware and required software plug-ins.

Prasad alleged that two visits scheduled with family members, on July 27 and August 24, 2020, did not occur because the family members’ computers repeatedly displayed a “cannot load plug-in” error. He also alleged that some jail video stations did not work and that the software sometimes crashed or froze. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including changes to the video-visiting system, jail computer hardware, and access to video stations during recreation time.

Screening standard

Because Prasad sought relief from governmental officers while confined, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money damages from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.

Analysis

The court held that, because Prasad was a pretrial detainee, his conditions-of-confinement claim arose under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment. Under the governing standard, a restriction does not amount to unconstitutional punishment when it is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, unless it is excessive in relation to that objective.

The court concluded that continued use of the Smart Jail Mail system did not state a valid Fourteenth Amendment claim. The allegations did not show an express intent to punish. Instead, the amended complaint indicated that the system was adopted to comply with the stay-at-home order, prevent the spread of COVID-19, and allow remote visits after in-person visits and lobby video-kiosk visits stopped.

The court further found that Prasad’s two failed visits did not support a reasonable inference that the system effectively denied video visits or was excessive in relation to the COVID-19-related objectives. Other inmates had successfully used the system, and the two failures occurred because Prasad’s family members’ computers could not load a plug-in. The court also stated that Prasad lacked standing to challenge problems he had not personally experienced, including alleged failures affecting other inmates or possible problems with future visits.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim. It found that leave to amend would be futile because Prasad had already been allowed to amend and the central allegations still did not state a claim. The court dismissed the action, denied all pending motions as moot, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and against Prasad, and closed the case. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.