Bolden v. Contra Costa County
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-04254
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Bolden v. Contra Costa County, Judge Kim denied Bolden’s motion and granted defendants’ summary-judgment motion because he had not completed the jail grievance process.
Deandre Bolden and defendants Contra Costa County, Alfonso Acosta, Nathaniel Cope, and D. Gonzalez; the court granted defendants’ summary-judgment motion and closed the file without deciding the underlying force and liability issues.
What happened
In Bolden v. Contra Costa County, Deandre Bolden alleged that Contra Costa County sheriff’s deputies used excessive force against him at the Martinez Detention Center. He brought claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil-rights law, as well as state-law claims for battery, negligence, and violating California’s Bane Act.
The defendants argued that Bolden’s claims were barred because he had not completed the jail’s grievance process before filing suit. The court agreed that Bolden’s Third Amended Complaint was the operative complaint and that he was incarcerated when he filed it, so the Prison Litigation Reform Act required him to file a grievance. The court found that he had never filed one and rejected his argument that his mental illness excused the failure.
The court did not decide whether the alleged force was lawful or whether the defendants were otherwise liable. Judge Kim denied Bolden’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, and directed the clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Bolden v. Contra Costa County · No. 3:20-cv-04254
- William Orrick
- July 11, 2022
Background
Deandre Bolden alleged that on November 17, 2019, while he was incarcerated at the Martinez Detention Center, Deputy Nathaniel Cope ordered inmates to return to their cells. Bolden alleged that he went toward a microwave, Deputy Alfonso Acosta ordered him back, and Acosta grabbed his arm and escorted him toward the stairs. Bolden alleged that when he turned to ask Acosta a question, Acosta, Cope, and Deputy D. Gonzalez took him to the ground. He further alleged that, while the deputies were restraining him, Cope struck him in the face with his knee, causing various injuries and emotional distress.
Bolden alleged that he had mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, delusional disorder, and psychosis. He also alleged that his mental condition prevented him from understanding or completing Contra Costa County’s jail grievance process. The opinion states that the jail required a formal grievance within 48 hours of the incident and that Bolden never filed a grievance about the incident.
Bolden asserted four claims: excessive force under the Fourteenth Amendment through 42 U.S.C. § 1983; battery; violation of California’s Bane Act; and negligence. He sought damages and attorney’s fees.
Motions and exhaustion issue
Bolden moved for summary judgment, arguing that Cope’s knee strike was excessive force and that Acosta and Gonzalez were integral participants. He also argued that the deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity and that the defendants were liable on his state-law claims. The defendants opposed Bolden’s motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
The defendants argued that all of Bolden’s claims were barred by his failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, or PLRA. The PLRA requires a prisoner to complete available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit about prison conditions. The defendants also made arguments about the reasonableness of the force, the deputies’ participation, and qualified immunity, but the court did not reach those issues.
Operative complaint
The court determined that Bolden’s Third Amended Complaint was the operative complaint—the pleading that controlled the case. An amended complaint generally replaces the earlier complaint unless it incorporates the earlier pleading by reference. Bolden’s Third Amended Complaint did not incorporate the earlier complaints. Although the court had previously allowed the amendment to relate back to the original complaint for amendment purposes, the Third Amended Complaint became the operative complaint once filed.
Bolden filed the Third Amended Complaint on September 30, 2021, while incarcerated in Contra Costa County. The court therefore concluded that the PLRA required him to complete the Contra Costa County jail’s grievance process before filing suit.
Failure to exhaust
The court found that the undisputed evidence showed Bolden did not file a grievance within 48 hours of the incident and never filed a grievance about it while in Contra Costa County custody. The court also rejected Bolden’s argument that he had exhausted remedies for new allegations added in the Third Amended Complaint because he had not filed any grievance before any of his complaints.
The court further held that the PLRA has no mental-health exception to its exhaustion requirement. It also concluded that, even if such an exception existed, Bolden’s unsupported declaration did not create a genuine dispute of material fact about whether his mental illness prevented him from filing a grievance. The court considered evidence that medical personnel reported normal mood and affect shortly after the incident and that Bolden showed a clear thought process, answered coherently, was alert and oriented, and denied hallucinations the next day.
Disposition
Because the exhaustion issue was dispositive, the court expressly did not decide the parties’ arguments about the substance of Bolden’s claims. The court denied Bolden’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The clerk was directed to close the file.
Judge
The opinion was signed by Sallie Kim, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.