Wilkins v. Santa Clara Sheriffs Department

Background

Deon McNeil Wilkins, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The court reviewed his amended complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend.

Wilkins alleged that deputies and a sergeant from the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department assaulted him at the Santa Clara County Main Jail on April 17, 2020. He alleged that the officers kicked, choked, and slammed his head against the floor, causing a broken arm, fractures, chipped teeth, bruised ribs, and abrasions. He alleged that he was following the officers’ orders when the force was used.

He also alleged that he received no medical attention for 16 hours after the incident, that an X-ray revealed multiple arm fractures, and that he was not treated or examined for his dental and rib injuries. In addition, he alleged that deputies repeatedly sprayed pepper spray directly into his eyes, permanently damaging his vision.

Court’s analysis

Under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state law. For a pretrial detainee’s excessive-force claim, the relevant question is whether the force purposely or knowingly used was objectively unreasonable.

The court held that, read liberally, the amended complaint stated a potentially valid excessive-force claim against deputies Varphal, Jones, Stokes, Frazier, Dunlap, Karlay, Zenuk, Oliveri, Peña, Caldwell, and Bazan, and sergeants Morales and Boles, based on their alleged participation in the April 17 attack.

The court dismissed defendants Amador and Uche because the complaint alleged both that they were employed by Valley Medical Center and that they participated in an attack at the Santa Clara County Main Jail, without explaining how both allegations could be true. The court directed Wilkins to explain the contradiction if he included new allegations about them in a second amended complaint.

The court concluded that more information was needed to evaluate the medical-care claims. Wilkins did not identify who was responsible for the 16-hour delay or identify the people to whom he reported his dental and rib injuries. The court instructed him to connect each individual defendant to the alleged violation and to identify unknown defendants by name if possible, or use numbered John Doe or Jane Doe designations while describing the efforts made to learn their identities.

The court also required more information about the pepper-spraying incidents, including the date, what happened, and who was responsible. It explained that the October 16, 2020 incident and other pepper-spraying incidents could be included in this case only if they were committed by defendants who also participated in the April 17 attack. The court further explained that the state-created-danger doctrine was unnecessary and did not apply because Wilkins alleged that state actors directly inflicted the harm, rather than placing him in danger through inaction.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Wilkins to file a complete second amended complaint by September 2, 2022, using the required caption and case number and labeling the first page “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The court stated that the new complaint had to include the medical-care claim and the excessive-force claim or claims, but could not repeat claims dismissed without leave to amend or allegations against defendants dismissed from the action.

If Wilkins did not file the second amended complaint by the deadline, the medical-care claim and the excessive-force claims related to pepper-spraying would be dismissed, and the case would proceed only on the excessive-force claim concerning the April 17, 2020 attack.