Smith v. Contra Costa County Sheriff

Background

Clarence Edward Smith filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits claims against a person acting under state law for violating rights protected by the Constitution or federal law. Smith sued Lieutenant Hockwater, Sergeants Varady and Ellis, and Registered Nurse Rose, all identified in the opinion as officials from the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office. He sought an injunction and money damages.

Smith alleged that jail staff were deliberately indifferent to his health, safety, and well-being by failing to protect him from COVID-19. He alleged that he tested positive on December 23, 2020, and suffered “permanent damage to his breathing, low oxygen levels, and heart issues.” He also described grievances submitted to Ellis, Varady, and Rose concerning COVID-19 precautions, cleaning, housing conditions, and his medical condition.

Screening and analysis

Because Smith was a prisoner seeking relief from government officials, the court was required to conduct a preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At screening, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read generously.

The court said it was unclear whether Smith was a convicted prisoner or a pretrial detainee. The applicable constitutional standard depends on that status: convicted prisoners generally bring conditions-of-confinement claims under the Eighth Amendment, while pretrial detainees challenge punitive conditions under the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against deprivation of due process. The court stated that Smith’s allegations about officials’ failure to take precautions against COVID-19 could potentially state a claim, but the complaint needed more information.

The court concluded that Smith had not stated a claim against Ellis or Varady based only on their handling of grievances. Although prisoners have a right to petition the government about grievances, the court said there is no constitutional right to receive a response or to obtain a particular action in response.

The court also concluded that Smith had not stated a cognizable claim against Rose. The allegations described Rose responding to a grievance and arranging a medical examination for Smith that same day. The court characterized Smith’s allegations that Rose was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs as speculative.

As to Hockwater, the court found that Smith appeared to sue him only in a supervisory capacity. Section 1983 does not impose liability solely because a supervisor is responsible for another person’s conduct. The court stated that a supervisor may be liable when the supervisor participated in or directed a constitutional violation, knew about it and failed to prevent it, or implemented a policy that itself caused the violation. Smith had not alleged facts meeting those standards.

Administrative exhaustion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally requires a prisoner to complete available administrative remedies before bringing a federal action about prison conditions. Smith attached evidence that he had filed grievances, but he answered “No” when asked whether the last level of appeal he reached was the highest level available. The court therefore said it appeared that Smith had not exhausted his administrative remedies and required him to provide more information explaining why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice so he could properly exhaust his claim.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered that Smith’s complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. The court gave Smith 28 days to file an amended complaint using the required civil-rights form. The amended complaint had to state each claim separately, identify what each defendant did or failed to do, identify the resulting injury, explain exhaustion or why remedies were unavailable, and avoid relying only on supervisory responsibility. Smith also had to state whether he was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner.

The order stated that the amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint and that failure to file it on time, or failure to correct the identified deficiencies, would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. The court separately stated that Smith’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed in another order.