Green v. San Mateo County

Background

Fa’jon Green filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated at the Maguire Correctional Facility. He sued San Mateo County, the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, and various officers. The court noted that Green was proceeding without a lawyer. The court stated that it would address his request to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Because Green was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental entities or officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that are legally cognizable and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Attempt to Add Co-Plaintiffs

Green attempted to join other prisoners as co-plaintiffs. The complaint was signed only by Green, and the court found no indication that the proposed co-plaintiffs had agreed to participate. The court also held that Green, who is not a licensed attorney, could not represent other people. It further identified practical problems with joint prisoner litigation, including the possibility that prisoners could be moved or released and lose the ability to work together. Because the action was not filed as a class action and Green could not represent absent class members, the court denied the attempt to join co-plaintiffs. The action would proceed only on Green’s individual claims.

Claims

Green alleged that, during the first two weeks of January 2022, custody officials brought five inmates known to have COVID-19 into the Bay housing unit, where inmates who had tested negative were housed. He alleged that officials failed to quarantine the infected inmates, failed to follow health-care guidelines, allowed shared use of phones, tables, chairs, and electronic tablets without disinfection, and refused his request to reopen another available housing unit. He characterized these allegations as an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim and a Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim. He sought damages and a preliminary injunction requiring infected inmates to be separated and quarantined.

The court held that the Eighth Amendment allegations were insufficient because they were generalized. Green needed to explain more specifically how he personally faced potential infection through unnecessary contact with infected inmates. He also did not describe what each named defendant personally did or allege facts showing that each defendant acted with deliberate indifference, meaning that the defendant knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded it. The court granted leave to amend to provide specific facts supporting a potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claim.

The court also found the equal-protection allegations insufficient. Green did not identify the protected class involved or explain how defendants treated him differently because of membership in that class. The court stated that he needed to identify similarly situated prisoners who received different treatment and provide factual allegations against each defendant responsible for the alleged discrimination.

As to San Mateo County and the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department, the court explained that a local government may be liable under § 1983 when an official policy or custom causes a constitutional violation, but it cannot be held liable solely for the actions of its employees. The court found that Green had not alleged enough facts to state a municipal-liability claim against the County or the Sheriff’s Department and allowed him to attempt to do so in an amended complaint.

Appointment of Counsel

Green requested appointed counsel but provided no supporting grounds. The court stated that civil litigants generally have no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action and that appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is reserved for exceptional circumstances. The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, while noting that it could appoint counsel later if circumstances warranted.

Preliminary Injunction

The court did not decide Green’s request for a preliminary injunction. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the opposing party generally must receive notice before a preliminary injunction can issue. The court stated that it would not decide the request unless and until defendants were served and given an opportunity to be heard.

Disposition

The court denied Green’s attempt to join co-plaintiffs and directed that any co-plaintiffs listed on the docket be terminated, with their claims dismissed without prejudice to each person filing a separate lawsuit. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and gave Green 28 days from filing of the order to submit an amended complaint on the court’s form. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and number and state “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. If Green did not timely file an amended complaint, the action would be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice.