Robertson v. Doe

Background

Reginald Robertson, a pretrial detainee proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at Santa Rita Jail. The operative complaint asserted retaliation and due-process claims against D. Bussell, along with state-law claims against Bussell, J. Alvarez, M. Ella, G. Harris, C. Wong, and Alameda County. J. Kaiser-Nevel had previously been dismissed as a party.

On January 22, 2020, Robertson and Bussell had a verbal dispute during which each allegedly threatened the other with a write-up. On January 23, Robertson entered visiting booth No. 8 at Santa Rita Jail. After the visit ended, he remained there for more than three hours because no one retrieved him. J. Alvarez eventually found Robertson and another inmate in the visiting booths shortly before 10:00 p.m. Alvarez removed them, took them to cells with toilet and drinking-water access, and arranged for Robertson to receive medication.

The evidence showed that Bussell had left the housing unit shortly after J. Kaiser-Nevel arrived at about 6:00 p.m. The court found no evidence that Bussell was present during the prolonged detention or that he directed or arranged for Robertson to be left in the booth. The evidence instead described a failure of communication involving visiting-booth buzzers, staff responsibilities, and the fact that no one realized Robertson and the other inmate had not been released.

Retaliation claim

Robertson alleged that Bussell kept him in the visiting booth to punish him for threatening to file a grievance during the January 22 argument. The defendants argued that Robertson had not exhausted the jail’s grievance process for a retaliation claim. Robertson’s only grievance about the incident described staff as negligent and failing to perform their duties; it did not identify retaliation, intentional conduct, the prior dispute with Bussell, or a retaliatory motive.

The court held that Robertson failed to exhaust available administrative remedies for the retaliation claim. It therefore dismissed that claim for failure to exhaust. The court nevertheless considered the retaliation claim on the merits because the defendants had addressed it and Robertson had responded.

For the merits, the court found no genuine dispute of material fact. Bussell was not present when the detention occurred, and Robertson provided only speculation that Bussell had orchestrated it. The court therefore ruled that Bussell was entitled to summary judgment on the retaliation claim.

Due-process claim

The court treated Robertson’s allegation that Bussell deliberately left him trapped in the booth as a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim based on deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference requires proof that an official knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to address it.

The court found no evidence that Bussell or any other defendant knew Robertson was still in the visiting booth. The court stated that even if staff should have discovered the problem through safety checks, the evidence did not show that anyone actually knew Robertson was trapped. Because the required knowledge was absent, the court held that Bussell was entitled to summary judgment on the due-process claim.

State-law claims

The remaining state-law claims included negligence and alleged violations of state regulations or statutory duties. The defendants argued that Robertson had not timely presented a government claim to Alameda County as required by California’s Tort Claims Act.

The court found that the claims accrued on January 23, 2020. Under the deadlines discussed in the opinion, Robertson had until July 23, 2020, or at the latest January 23, 2021, to present a timely government claim. County records showed that the documents Robertson submitted concerning this action were not received until June 11, 2021, or later. The court rejected Robertson’s argument that filing federal civil-rights claims eliminated the state-law claim-presentation requirement.

The court held that the state-law claims were barred by the California Tort Claims Act. It dismissed with prejudice the remaining state-law claims against Bussell, Alvarez, Ella, Harris, Wong, and Alameda County.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The retaliation and due-process claims against Bussell were dismissed with prejudice, and the remaining state-law claims were dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with California’s Tort Claims Act. The court did not reach the defendants’ qualified-immunity argument because it found no constitutional violation.