Humes v. Bernal

Background

Francis A. Humes filed a second amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violating federal rights. Humes, who was proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that he was a pretrial detainee at the Monterey County Jail and suffered serious injuries on August 2, 2019, when Deputy Torres failed to properly secure Humes’s wheelchair during transportation in a vehicle.

The court had previously dismissed an amended complaint but allowed Humes to amend it. The second amended complaint named Sheriff Deputy Torres and the Monterey County Sheriff Department Jail as defendants.

Claims and Screening

Because Humes was a prisoner suing governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by someone acting under state law.

The court found that Humes sufficiently alleged a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Deputy Torres. Humes alleged that Torres deliberately disregarded the risk of injury by refusing to stop and properly secure the wheelchair, even though the risk was obvious. The court also exercised supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear a related state-law claim in the same case, over Humes’s gross-negligence claim against Torres.

The court dismissed Humes’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim against the Monterey County Sheriff Department Jail. It reasoned that Humes was not denied the benefits of a service or discriminated against because of his disability: the Jail provided him with a wheelchair and a suitable transportation vehicle. The court stated that Humes had already been given an opportunity to amend this claim and did not merit another opportunity.

The court also dismissed Humes’s policy-or-training claim against the Jail, known as a municipal-liability or Monell claim. The court found that Humes did not adequately allege that a policy was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. It also noted that his allegation that Torres disregarded an existing policy contradicted his claim that the Jail lacked a relevant policy or failed to train deputies pursuant to one. Humes had already received two opportunities to amend.

Order

The court ordered that the ADA claim and Monell claim against the Monterey County Sheriff Department Jail were DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court found two claims against Deputy Torres cognizable: deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment and state-law gross negligence. The Clerk was directed to terminate all other defendants, serve Torres with the lawsuit materials, and send Humes a copy of the order.

The court directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claims no later than 91 days after the order was filed. It set deadlines for Humes’s opposition and the defendants’ reply and stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order was signed by United States District Judge Edward J. Davila on April 27, 2023.