Johnson v. Alameda County Sheriff Department - Santa Rita Jail

Background

Etta Johnson brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning her arrest and detention at Santa Rita Jail in 2019. The defendants named in the opinion were the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department, Santa Rita Jail, and Alameda County Sheriffs identified as Does 1 through 20. Johnson was self-represented.

In an earlier order, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss Johnson’s first amended complaint. The court dismissed without prejudice her excessive-force claim and her claim alleging deliberate indifference to severe medical needs because she had not adequately pleaded municipal liability under Monell and, for the medical-needs claim, had not plausibly alleged objective deliberate indifference. The court dismissed with prejudice her claims for unlawful deprivation of property and punitive damages because those claims did not state legally recognized claims for relief. The defendants had not moved to dismiss the claims against the individual Doe defendants, including Johnson’s false-arrest claim.

The court allowed Johnson to file a second amended complaint by December 29, 2021 and gave instructions for re-pleading her claims. Johnson did not timely file that complaint. After the court ordered her to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, she requested more time. The court extended the deadline to February 10, 2022, but, having received no new filing, dismissed the case without prejudice on February 17, 2022.

Current filings and ruling

Johnson filed her second amended complaint on February 25, 2022. The clerk’s file-stamp indicated that the materials had been received on February 10 but were not filed until February 25. Johnson also filed a CD-ROM that appeared to contain medical data and an unopposed administrative motion to change time. She stated that she had tried to submit the materials by the deadline but had become sick and was experiencing difficult family circumstances.

The court construed Johnson’s filings as a motion to reopen the case and granted that request. The clerk was directed to reopen the case.

The court then dismissed Johnson’s second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court acted under its own authority and found that the complaint contained no factual or legal allegations; instead, it attached medical records containing sensitive personal and identifying information. The court stated that those materials did not state a legal claim for relief.

The court ordered the clerk’s office to seal Docket Nos. 32 and 33 because of the sensitive information and related privacy interests. The CD-ROM was returned to the clerk’s custody. Johnson could retrieve it within 30 days of the order; otherwise, the clerk’s office could destroy or otherwise dispose of it.

Leave to amend and instructions

The court granted Johnson leave to file a third amended complaint by April 8, 2022. The court instructed her to identify, to the best of her ability, the individual Doe defendants she sought to hold liable; state whether she sought to hold Alameda County liable for the excessive-force and deliberate-indifference claims; and plead facts supporting municipal liability under Monell if she pursued those claims.

The court also instructed Johnson to plead facts meeting the Ninth Circuit’s standard for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. If she pursued a property-deprivation claim, she was instructed to plead a state tort claim, such as a claim under the California Government Claims Act. She was required to re-plead every claim in the third amended complaint, including false arrest if she continued to assert it, because an amended complaint must stand on its own and cannot incorporate earlier complaints.

The court further required the third amended complaint to be clearly labeled, contain a single statement of facts in numbered paragraphs, include only facts connected to the claimed legal or constitutional violations, number every page, and name Alameda County as a defendant if Johnson sued the county. The court stated that the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department and Santa Rita Jail were improper defendants. Judge Donna Ryu strongly encouraged Johnson to seek help from the court’s Legal Help Center for unrepresented parties.