Johnson v. Alameda County Sheriff Department - Santa Rita Jail

Background

Etta Johnson alleged that on February 13, 2019, while riding an AC Transit bus, she struck a man’s hand after seeing him take her phone from her purse. The bus driver called the Alameda County sheriff. According to Johnson, an unidentified officer ordered her off the bus, twisted her right arm until she heard a pop in her elbow and shoulder, threw her into a patrol car, and required her to use a breathalyzer. She alleged that she later awoke at Santa Rita Jail and that her paperwork stated she had been arrested for public drunkenness, although she said she had consumed no alcohol. The criminal charge was dismissed on April 10, 2019.

Johnson also alleged that, while detained at Santa Rita, an unidentified female correctional officer smashed her fingers in a cell door and that she did not receive timely medical attention. She alleged that the jail withheld her prescribed blood-pressure medications, gave her an alternate medication that did not control her symptoms, denied her request for a medical evaluation, and did not provide access to a doctor before her release. She further alleged that two bags and several personal items were not returned after her arrest.

The first amended complaint asserted claims for excessive force, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs as a pretrial detainee, deprivation of property, and false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law. Johnson appeared without a lawyer. Defendants Alameda County Sheriff’s Department, Santa Rita Jail, and Alameda County sheriff Doe defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or alternatively requested a more definite statement under Rule 12(e).

Proper Defendants and Jurisdiction

The court held that the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department and Santa Rita Jail were improper defendants for Johnson’s claims. It stated that Alameda County was the proper defendant in place of those entities and directed Johnson to name the County if she chose to sue it. The court concluded that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the County and rejected defendants’ argument that the County was protected from suit by sovereign immunity.

Defendants did not move to dismiss the claims against the individual Doe defendants. The court noted that Johnson properly sued those defendants as Does but would need to identify them when she obtained information about their identities.

Claims Against Alameda County

The court explained that a local government cannot be held liable under section 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly violated someone’s rights. Under the rule from Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, Johnson had to plausibly allege that a County policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation.

The court found that Johnson’s excessive-force allegations described a possible constitutional violation, but that she had not adequately alleged the additional facts needed to hold the County liable under that local-government-liability rule. If she intended to assert the excessive-force claim against the County, the court dismissed it with leave to amend.

The court dismissed the deliberate-indifference claim with leave to amend as to all defendants against whom Johnson asserted it. It found that the allegations about the alternate blood-pressure medication supported, at most, negligence rather than the required reckless disregard. It also found that Johnson had not sufficiently described the severity of her finger injury, why urgent treatment was required, or facts showing that the correctional officer acted with reckless disregard. The court noted that it was unclear what supported Johnson’s allegation that she was not provided an X-ray.

The court treated Johnson’s property claim as a section 1983 claim for deprivation of property rather than an excessive-force claim. It held that the claim was not cognizable because California provides an adequate state-law remedy for property deprivations. The federal property claim was dismissed with prejudice. The court granted Johnson leave to amend to plead an appropriate state tort claim for the loss of her property.

The court dismissed with prejudice Johnson’s request for punitive damages against Alameda County, holding that the County was immune from punitive damages under section 1983.

More Definite Statement

The court denied defendants’ Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement. Rule 12(e) permits a court to require clarification when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot reasonably respond. The court found that Johnson’s complaint was not unintelligible and gave defendants enough notice of the substance of her claims, especially because she represented herself.

Disposition and Amendment Instructions

The court concluded that defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Johnson’s excessive-force claim against the County was dismissed with leave to amend; her deliberate-indifference claim was dismissed with leave to amend as to all defendants against whom it was asserted; her federal property-deprivation claim was dismissed with prejudice, while she was allowed to plead a state tort claim; and her punitive-damages claim against the County was dismissed with prejudice. The Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement was denied.

The court granted Johnson leave to file a second amended complaint by December 29, 2021. It instructed her to identify the Doe defendants as specifically as possible, state which defendants were sued on each claim, plead facts supporting any County liability under the local-government-liability rule, re-plead the medical-care allegations under the applicable standard, and include all claims in one complete complaint. The court stated that if Johnson continued to assert false arrest, she had to include that claim in the second amended complaint even though it was not at issue in the motion.