Berry v. Escobar 2307

Background

Julius Berry filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated and represented himself. He named Deputy Sheriff Escobar, Deputy Sheriff Jayme, and the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department as defendants. Berry sought damages and injunctive relief based on events at the San Francisco County Jail on September 14, 2020.

Berry alleged that, while he was handcuffed during a housing transfer, Jayme slammed him into a wall, Escobar slammed him onto an elevator floor, and both deputies repeatedly twisted his arms and beat him. He also alleged that officers dragged him into a safety cell, forcibly stripped him, assaulted him, and denied repeated requests for medical care. Berry further alleged that someone grabbed his buttocks while he was naked. He said he filed grievances and a formal complaint, which was denied on February 8, 2021.

Screening standard

Because Berry was incarcerated and sought relief from government employees and a governmental department, the court conducted preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek damages from an immune defendant. The court also stated that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state authority.

Court’s rulings

The court stated that it was unclear whether Berry was a convicted prisoner or a pretrial detainee when the incident occurred. It explained that the Eighth Amendment applies to excessive-force claims by convicted prisoners, while the Fourteenth Amendment provides the relevant protection for pretrial detainees. The court found that Berry’s allegations stated an excessive-force claim under either standard. His § 1983 excessive-force claim against Escobar and Jayme was therefore found cognizable and allowed to proceed.

The court dismissed Berry’s claim for injunctive relief because he had been transferred from the county jail to state prison and had not shown a reasonable expectation or demonstrated probability that he would again face the conditions at that jail.

The court dismissed Berry’s § 1983 claims against the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department without prejudice. It explained that a department cannot be held liable under § 1983 simply for an employee’s acts. To proceed against the department, Berry would have needed to allege that a department policy or custom caused his injuries, including a deliberately indifferent failure to adopt adequate safeguards.

The court found Berry’s supplemental state-law claims—including claims described as sexual assault, assault, excessive force, negligence, pain and suffering, refusal of medical care, post-traumatic stress disorder, and mental anguish—cognizable against Escobar, Jayme, and the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department. Those claims were allowed to proceed.

Next steps ordered by the court

The clerk was directed to send the defendants notices and copies of the complaint and order so that service could be waived. The defendants were ordered to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order also established a schedule for summary-judgment or other dispositive motions, opposition, and reply briefing, and permitted discovery under the federal rules.

The court advised Berry that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and serving documents on the defendants or their counsel. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order.