Brewster v. Mills

Background

Cenious Brewster sued the City and County of San Francisco and several officers at San Francisco County Jail #5. He alleged that Deputy Daniel T. Mills sexually harassed him, that Mills and other defendants retaliated against him for complaining, and that Lieutenant Shannon and Captain Tilton violated his due-process rights by maintaining an MR4 restraint classification. He also brought a claim under California's Bane Act.

Brewster testified that Mills watched him shower, made sexual comments about his body, called himself “daddy,” made a vulgar sexual statement, and once brushed against his buttocks while tightening handcuffs. Brewster also said he complained about Mills and submitted a written grievance. He believed the grievance was discarded after he did not receive a signed copy. Later that day, Deputy Seng reported that Brewster had thrown an unknown liquid at him. Officers placed Brewster in a safety cell, which Brewster claimed was retaliation for his grievance. Brewster also alleged that Mills assigned him an unjustified MR4 status requiring handcuffs, belly chains, leg irons, and two-deputy escorts.

Summary-judgment standards and sexual-harassment claim

The court applied the Rule 56 summary-judgment standard. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and may not weigh evidence or decide witness credibility.

The defendants argued that the alleged sexual harassment did not violate the Eighth Amendment and that they were protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established when the conduct occurred.

The court concluded that the alleged touching, even viewed favorably to Brewster, appeared incidental to putting on handcuffs and was not shown to be intended to humiliate or degrade him. The court also concluded that the law in April 2020 did not clearly establish that the alleged verbal harassment alone violated the Eighth Amendment. It therefore held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the sexual-harassment claim and granted summary judgment on that claim.

Due-process claim

Brewster pursued the due-process claim against Lieutenant Shannon and Captain Tilton, not Deputy Mills. The court found no evidence that Shannon or Tilton knew about or were involved in the MR4 classification process, and no evidence sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that they were responsible for a due-process violation. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on this claim.

Retaliation claim

Brewster alleged that the defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances and this lawsuit, including by placing him in a safety cell and assigning or maintaining his MR4 status. The defendants argued that he had not completed the required prison grievance process before bringing the retaliation claim.

Brewster appeared to concede that he had not completed that process, but argued that it was unavailable because he feared retaliation and had already experienced retaliation for filing grievances. The court recognized that a prisoner need not complete the grievance process if it was unavailable. Although later grievances cast doubt on Brewster's account, the court held that the evidence, viewed in his favor, created a factual dispute about whether he reasonably believed he would face retaliation for using the process. The court therefore denied summary judgment on that exhaustion defense.

Because disputed factual questions remained, the court stated that it would need to conduct an evidentiary hearing to decide whether Brewster had exhausted available remedies if the defendants continued to pursue that defense. The court's ruling left the retaliation claim subject to that further proceeding.

Bane Act claim

The court noted that the parties appeared to agree that the Bane Act claim was based on the same conduct as the federal claims. Because the court could not yet determine whether any federal claim would remain, it declined at that stage to dismiss the Bane Act claim for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. The court denied summary judgment on the Bane Act claim.

Motions to seal and trial-related motions

The court granted the administrative motions to seal. The documents included medical and private health information, private personnel and security information about the county jail, nonpublic surveillance footage, and images of nonparty third parties. The court found legitimate security concerns and concluded that the documents should remain sealed.

The court terminated the parties' motions in limine without prejudice to refiling if the case ultimately proceeded to trial. It also set a case-management conference and stated that an evidentiary hearing would be discussed.