Pries v. City of Antioch

Background

In May 2020, police officers investigating a petty-theft incident stopped a car in which Cody Pries was a passenger. The officers allegedly shot Pries with a bean-bag gun and deployed a police canine that bit him. They arrested him, took him to John Muir Hospital for treatment, and booked him into the West County Detention Facility, which operates under the control of Contra Costa County.

Pries alleged that hospital staff cleaned the dog-bite wound, but that the wound worsened at West County. He told a nurse that he suspected a staph infection, and the nurse prescribed antibiotics for a month. Pries alleged that the infection grew to the size of a bowling ball and that he repeatedly told unidentified West County employees that his condition was worsening, that he was experiencing a medical emergency, and that his treatment was insufficient. He also alleged that he showed them the worsening infection, could barely walk, and needed a hospital bed, but that his requests for medical help were dismissed and he was threatened and intimidated.

On May 29, 2020, a doctor ordered that Pries be taken to the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center. He alleged that he was diagnosed with and treated for a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, requiring the infection to be drained and the wound to be closed, followed by daily wound draining for about a month.

Claims and motion

Pries sued the police officers for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. He sued the County and unidentified defendants for denial of medical care under § 1983, negligence, and violation of the California Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1.

The County moved to dismiss all claims against it. It argued that the § 1983 claim, which the County characterized as a claim based on an official policy or practice, was inadequately pleaded. It argued that the negligence claim was based on unnamed deputies rather than medical staff, that California Government Code § 845.6 provided immunity, and that Pries had not alleged facts overcoming that immunity. The County also argued that Pries had not alleged the required specific intent for the Bane Act claim.

Pries responded that he had previously dismissed the official-policy-or-practice claim and was instead pursuing a § 1983 claim alleging that jail staff were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. He argued that he had plausibly pleaded all of the claims.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Pries plausibly alleged a deliberate-indifference claim. Under Farmer v. Brennan, prison officials are deliberately indifferent when they know that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to reduce it. The court found that Pries’s allegations about the defendants’ knowledge of his worsening condition and his repeated pleas for medical help were sufficient at the pleading stage.

The court rejected the County’s argument that Pries had conceded dismissal of the § 1983 claim. According to the court, Pries had conceded only the separate official-policy-or-practice claim, not the § 1983 claim alleging deliberate indifference in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court also held that Pries plausibly pleaded negligence. It explained that California Government Code § 845.6 does not defeat a claim when a public employee knows or has reason to know that a prisoner needs immediate medical care and fails to take reasonable action to summon that care.

Finally, the court held that Pries plausibly pleaded a Bane Act violation. His allegation that County employees threatened him instead of helping him satisfied, at least at the pleading stage, the required specific intent to violate his constitutional rights.

Disposition

The court denied the County’s motion to dismiss. The order states that this disposed of the motion identified as ECF No. 47.