Tolbert v. Colley

Background

Joel Tolbert, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Antioch Police Department (APD), APD Chief Allen Cantando, APD Officers James Colley and James Perkinson, and Contra Costa County Detention Health Services (CCCDHS). The court had previously found the claims against Colley and Perkinson legally cognizable and dismissed the claims against the remaining defendants with leave to amend. Tolbert filed a timely amended complaint.

Screening standard

Because Tolbert is a prisoner suing governmental defendants, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also construed Tolbert’s allegations liberally because he was not represented by an attorney.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and action by a person acting under state law.

Claims the court found legally cognizable

Tolbert alleged that Colley and Perkinson shot, beat, cut, suffocated, and threatened to sexually assault him while arresting him at his mother’s house, even though he did not resist. The court held that these allegations stated a legally cognizable § 1983 claim against both officers for excessive force during the arrest, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Tolbert also alleged that APD had a widespread practice of failing to train and supervise officers in the constitutional use of force, and that this practice caused Colley and Perkinson to violate his rights. The court found these allegations sufficient to state a § 1983 claim against APD based on an unconstitutional custom or practice under Monell v. Department of Social Services.

Tolbert alleged that Chief Cantando failed to adequately train or supervise Colley and Perkinson in the proper use of force, leading to the alleged excessive force. Construing the allegations liberally, the court found a legally cognizable claim against Cantando.

Finally, Tolbert alleged that CCCDHS failed to provide crutches, pain relief, and other adequate medical care after he was transferred from a hospital, where he had surgery for injuries from the arrest, to the Contra Costa County Jail. The court found these allegations legally cognizable as a claim that CCCDHS violated his right to due process. The court cited the rule that pretrial detainees in state custody have a constitutional right to adequate medical treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Order and next steps

The court ordered the clerk to issue a summons and directed the U.S. Marshal to serve, without requiring advance payment of fees, the amended complaint and the order on APD, Cantando, Colley, Perkinson, and CCCDHS. The clerk was also directed to send a courtesy copy to the City Attorney’s Office of the City of Antioch.

The defendants were directed to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order set November 21, 2022, as the deadline for defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, meaning a motion that could resolve the case. It set deadlines for Tolbert’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, authorized discovery under the federal rules, and required Tolbert to serve communications on the defendants or their counsel and keep the court informed of address changes. The order warned that failure to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).

The order screened the amended complaint and authorized service; it did not decide the ultimate truth of the allegations or whether Tolbert would prevail.