Johnson v. Banos

Background

Darrell Eugene Johnson, a former detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the court dismissed his second amended complaint with permission to amend, Johnson filed a third amended complaint.

Johnson alleged that a COVID-19 policy at San Mateo County Jail violated his rights and caused injuries when he contracted the virus. He alleged that he and other detainees were quarantined in the same unit as detainees who had COVID-19, that his cellmate tested positive, that he was not moved, and that he then contracted COVID-19 and suffered injuries.

Court’s analysis

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a complaint filed by a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, but still must include enough factual allegations to make relief plausible.

For a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action by a person acting under state law. Because Johnson challenged the conditions of pretrial detention, the relevant question was whether the conditions amounted to punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process guarantee. A detention condition does not ordinarily amount to punishment when it is reasonably related to a legitimate government objective.

The court also explained that a local government may be liable under § 1983 when an unconstitutional policy is the moving force behind a constitutional violation. A local government cannot be held responsible solely because one of its employees allegedly acted unlawfully.

The court concluded that Johnson’s allegations about San Mateo County’s policy and the COVID-19 outbreak at the jail were sufficient, when liberally construed, to proceed against the county.

Disposition and case management

The court ordered that the case continues against San Mateo County. All other defendants were dismissed. The clerk was directed to issue a summons and have the United States Marshal serve San Mateo County with the third amended complaint, its attachments, and the order without requiring prepayment of fees.

The court also ordered defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 56 days after service, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. It set deadlines for Johnson’s opposition and any reply, stated that no hearing would be held unless later ordered, allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and reminded Johnson that failure to prosecute could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b).