Jane Doe v. County of San Mateo

Background

Tannaz Jabbari’s second amended complaint asserted claims arising from her confinement in San Mateo County Jail in October 2020. The government defendants moved to dismiss some, but not all, of the claims. The order was issued on a motion to dismiss, which asks whether the complaint adequately states legally recognized claims based on its allegations.

Claim-by-claim rulings

- First claim—excessive force: The defendants did not challenge Jabbari’s civil-rights claim against Does 1–4. The order therefore left this claim unchallenged. - Second claim—sexual assault: Jabbari identified the California Penal Code as the source of the claim, but that law does not provide a private right to sue. The court also found that an allegation that she was touched on the “buttocks and groin” during jail intake, without more, did not state a tort claim because officers must pat down arriving detainees. The claim was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Jabbari could attempt to replead it based on more specific allegations and a different legal basis. - Third claim—religious burden under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: Jabbari challenged the choice between quarantine and complying with temperature checks, mask use, and COVID-19 testing. The court held that these requirements were the least restrictive means of serving the compelling government interest in preventing COVID-19 from spreading in the jail. The claim was dismissed with prejudice. - Fourth claim—failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act: The court held that a complete exemption from the jail’s COVID-containment program, or an unspecified additional accommodation, was not adequately alleged and likely would not be reasonable because it would fundamentally change the program. Jabbari also alleged that a visiting nurse told her to wear a mask during quarantine, but she did not allege that she was actually forced to wear one or provide enough facts for a narrower claim. The claim was dismissed without prejudice. - Fifth claim—denial of phone calls: The defendants did not challenge this claim. - Sixth claim—delayed arraignment or initial court appearance: Jabbari alleged that she was jailed on October 20, did not appear in court until October 30, and missed two scheduled appearances because she refused COVID-19 testing. She also alleged that jail staff told her she could not appear by video or telephone unless she took a test. The court held that these allegations were sufficient at this stage to state a claim against the sheriff and county for a policy-based due-process violation. This claim could proceed. - Seventh claim—denial of access to courts and counsel: The court held that the alleged delay was not enough to show denial of the required access to courts. This claim was dismissed with prejudice. - Eighth claim—denial of adequate medical care: The defendants did not challenge this claim. - Ninth claim—denial of the right to refuse medical treatment: The court held that Jabbari had no right to refuse routine intake measurements such as blood pressure, pulse, and temperature. It also held that temperature checks were part of the least restrictive means of preventing COVID-19’s spread in the jail. This claim was dismissed with prejudice. - Tenth claim—quarantine without a disciplinary hearing: The court held that Jabbari did not adequately allege that quarantine was punishment rather than a COVID-19-control measure. This claim was dismissed with prejudice. - Eleventh claim—retaliation: Jabbari alleged that she refused a COVID-19 test because of her religion and disability and that a jail employee retaliated by taunting her with a requested blanket and conditioning receipt of it on wearing a mask. The court held that these allegations stated a retaliation claim against an unidentified officer, one of the four Does. To the extent Jabbari asserted a policy-based claim against the sheriff and county, however, she did not allege a retaliation policy, and that portion was dismissed without prejudice. - Additional policy-or-custom claims: Jabbari’s claims concerning denial of phone calls and denial of medical treatment were essentially unchallenged. Her additional claims concerning excessive force, aggressive tactics to coerce compliance with COVID-19 rules, and denial of access to courts or counsel were dismissed without prejudice because she alleged no specific facts about a policy or custom beyond her own experience. - Conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986: The court held that Jabbari did not allege an agreement to deprive her of rights; a policy alone was not a conspiracy. Because the claim under Section 1985 failed, the related claim under Section 1986 also failed. Both claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Disposition and next steps

The order was titled “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss.” If Jabbari chose to file an amended complaint, she had 14 days from the order. If she did not, the lawsuit would proceed on the remaining claims, and an answer to those claims would be due 21 days after the order.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it resolved a motion to dismiss, which addresses whether claims are adequately pleaded rather than finally deciding the underlying dispute.