Herndon v. San Jose Behavioral Health
- Charles Breyer
- 3:22-cv-01020
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Herndon v. San Jose Behavioral Health, Judge Breyer dismissed Herndon’s property-deprivation claim while granting his request to proceed without paying fees.
Gerrod Herndon’s § 1983 damages action against San Jose Behavioral Health staff and administrators was dismissed; his request to proceed without paying the filing fee was granted, and any additional claims against the mentioned law-enforcement defendants were left for a separate action.
What happened
In Gerrod Herndon v. San Jose Behavioral Health, Gerrod Herndon, a former state prisoner living at an assisted-living facility, filed a complaint without a lawyer. He alleged that staff and administrators at San Jose Behavioral Health Hospital took property from his room and sought damages.
The court allowed Herndon to proceed without paying the filing fee based on his affidavit of poverty. But it found that his civil-rights claim could not continue because the complaint did not show that the private hospital staff or administrators acted for the state. The court also explained that a property loss by a state actor generally does not support this type of claim when California provides an adequate way to seek compensation after the loss.
Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and directed the clerk to close the case. The court said that any additional claims involving the Marin County Sheriff or the San Rafael and Novato police departments had to be brought in a separate case.
The detailed version
- Herndon v. San Jose Behavioral Health · No. 3:22-cv-01020
- Charles Breyer
- Apr. 21, 2022
Background
Gerrod Herndon, identified as a former state prisoner who was living at All Saints Extended Care, filed a complaint without a lawyer seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that staff and administrators at San Jose Behavioral Health Hospital “stole” property from his room. He also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that request based solely on his affidavit of poverty.
Court’s analysis
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires dismissal of a qualifying action that fails to state a claim. It held that the § 1983 claim failed because private entities and individuals do not act “under color of state law,” an essential requirement for a § 1983 claim, and purely private conduct is not actionable under that statute.
The court gave an additional reason concerning property deprivation by state actors: a negligent or intentional loss of property generally does not violate due process under § 1983 when the state provides an adequate remedy after the loss. The court stated that California provides such a remedy.
The opinion also states that Herndon appeared to suggest other property-deprivation or wrongdoing claims against the Marin County Sheriff and the San Rafael and Novato police departments. Because those were claims against different, unnamed defendants, the court said they had to be brought in a separate action.
Disposition
Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the § 1983 action for failure to state a claim, directed the clerk to close the case, and terminated the motion to proceed without paying the filing fee after granting that request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.