Richards v. Essick

Background

Larry Richards, who was representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, sued Sonoma County Sheriff Mark Essick 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 and denied his requests to use a telephone to obtain those medications. He also alleged that staff denied him a wheelchair, damaged 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: disability discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, denial of adequate medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment, denial of state-required phone calls under the Fourteenth Amendment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Sonoma County and Mark Essick moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The motion challenged only the emotional-distress claim.

Legal Standard

The court explained that a complaint must provide enough factual detail to give defendants fair notice and to make the claim plausible, rather than merely possible. Because Richards was representing himself, the court read his complaint liberally, but it could not add essential facts that he had not alleged.

Analysis

The County argued that California Government Code section 844.6 generally immunizes a public entity from liability for an injury to a prisoner. The court noted an exception in section 845.6. That exception can impose liability when an employee knows, or has reason to know, that a prisoner needs immediate medical care, fails to take reasonable action to obtain that care, and the prisoner suffers an injury proximately caused by that failure.

The court denied the County’s motion to dismiss. It held that, when liberally construed, Richards’s allegations plausibly showed that County jail staff knew he needed immediate medical care, failed to summon that care, and caused an injury through that failure. The court said the later medical evaluation did not change the result, and the claim was not defeated merely because Richards labeled it intentional infliction of emotional distress rather than citing section 845.6. The court also said the complaint could be construed to assert an independent claim under section 845.6.

As to Mark Essick, the court held that the complaint contained no allegations showing his personal involvement in the alleged wrongdoing. The court therefore dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against him without prejudice.

Disposition

The court denied Sonoma County’s motion to dismiss the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim and granted without prejudice Mark Essick’s motion to dismiss that claim. The court permitted Richards to file an amended complaint by February 3, 2023. The order did not resolve the other claims identified in the complaint.