French v. Wallahan

Background

Jade French alleged that, while he was a pretrial detainee at the Lake County Jail, roofing work above his cell caused noxious fumes to enter through the ventilation ducts. He alleged that the fumes caused burning in his nose, lungs, eyes, and throat, and that after his release he went to an emergency room, felt that his lungs were damaged, and lost his voice for a week. French alleged that he warned jail guards about the fumes and that they did not ensure his safety.

French appeared without a lawyer and sued L. Brabec, J. Mills, and M. Wallahan, whom he alleged were the jailhouse guards present during the incident. He asserted claims under the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process and equal-protection provisions, and California law for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to make a legal claim plausible. French did not file an opposition to the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that French could not assert an Eighth Amendment claim because the complaint indicated that he was a pretrial detainee. The court explained that pretrial detainees generally assert conditions-of-confinement claims under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment. The court also stated that, even if the Eighth Amendment applied, French had not plausibly alleged that the defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety.

For the Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim, the court applied the rule that a pretrial detainee must plausibly allege that the defendant intentionally decided the conditions of confinement, those conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm, the defendant failed to take reasonable available measures to reduce the risk, and that failure caused the injury. The court found that the complaint did not plausibly allege the first element. It said the complaint suggested, at most, a lack of due care: the defendants may have failed to respond adequately after French reported the fumes, but the complaint did not allege that they intentionally created the conditions for the purpose of causing his injury. Because this element was missing, the court did not address the remaining elements.

The court dismissed the equal-protection claim because French did not allege that he belonged to a protected class or that the defendants acted with discriminatory intent. It also dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because the complaint did not allege that the defendants intentionally caused the emotional harm. The defendants separately argued that French’s tort claims should be dismissed because he had not presented them to the public entity as required by California Government Code section 911.2. The court did not resolve that issue because it found that the tort claim failed on the merits, and the complaint named individual employees rather than a public entity.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Any amended complaint had to be filed by February 18, 2022. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing because oral argument was not required. Judge Susan Illston signed the order.