Richards v. Essick

Background

Larry Richards, representing himself and proceeding without prepaying filing fees, sued Sonoma County jail staff and other defendants. He alleged that, during an eight-hour detention at the Sonoma County Regional Adult Detention Center, staff denied him access to more than 20 essential medications, refused his requests for telephone calls, denied him a wheelchair, cracked his cell window, used extreme force, placed him alone in maximum security, and converted his cash into a credit card that prevented him from taking a bus after his release.

The court identified four claims in the filings: disability discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; denial of constitutionally adequate medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment; denial of telephone access, including calls required by California Penal Code section 851.5; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Richards also sought a temporary restraining order to preserve video from cameras outside his cell and asked that the alleged violation of section 851.5 be referred for criminal prosecution.

Screening and Claims

Because Richards was proceeding without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint before directing service. The screening statute requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. The court instead concluded that, liberally construing the self-represented plaintiff’s filings, the allegations were sufficient to survive frivolousness review and to show that he might be entitled to relief.

For the Americans with Disabilities Act claim, the court found sufficient allegations that Richards told jail personnel about his medical needs and requested accommodations, including phone access to obtain his medication. The court explained that individual defendants cannot be sued for damages under Title II in their individual capacities, but that limitation did not prevent service because Richards named entity defendants and challenged conduct at the jail.

For the medical-care claim, the court applied the standard for a person detained before trial. Richards alleged that he told staff about his medical conditions, need for medication, heart palpitations, and migraine, but staff ignored him. The court found those allegations sufficient for service. It also said that Doe defendants could be used where Richards did not yet know the names of the staff involved.

For the phone-access claim, the court said that denying telephone access to a person detained before trial can violate due process when the restriction amounts to punishment. Richards alleged that he was denied phone access throughout his eight-hour detention, and the court found the claim plausible enough for service. The court also noted California’s statutory right to three calls immediately after booking and, except when physically impossible, no later than three hours after arrest.

The court allowed service on the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. It discussed a federal statute limiting recovery for mental or emotional injury suffered in custody without a qualifying physical injury or sexual act, but concluded that service should proceed because the other claims supported service and the case law concerning physical and emotional injury warranted allowing the claim at this stage.

Potential Deficiencies and Relief

The court identified issues for Richards to consider in a supplemental filing. It said that people named only in the caption of a later motion were not treated as defendants because the complaint did not identify what they allegedly did. It also said that naming all Sonoma County residents, all detention-center staff, and state agencies was unnecessarily broad and that Richards should focus on the people or entities that allegedly violated his rights.

The court noted that Richards’s references to disability retaliation, conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. sections 1985 and 1986, excessive force, and restrictive housing did not currently provide enough detail to establish separate claims. It also flagged possible problems with claims against Sheriff Mark Essick and Sonoma County because Richards did not allege the Sheriff’s personal involvement or a County policy or practice causing the alleged violations. The court allowed Richards to address these issues in one supplemental filing by October 10, 2022.

The court did not decide the scope of Richards’s requested relief or his request for criminal referral. It also deferred consideration of an injunction concerning preservation of jail video until the defendants appeared, while noting that Richards’s preservation notice and service of the lawsuit provided notice of a potential duty to preserve relevant evidence.

Disposition

The court authorized service of the complaint on the Sonoma County defendants named in the complaint. It directed the Clerk to issue summonses and the United States Marshal to serve the summonses, complaint, related materials, and order without requiring advance payment of service fees. The court stated that its ruling did not prevent the defendants from filing a motion to dismiss and did not determine the ultimate merits of Richards’s claims.