Johnson v. Anupa

Background

Matthew Thomas Johnson, an inmate at San Francisco County Jail, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. The court had granted him permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee in a separate order.

Johnson’s amended complaint named Sgt. Vigil and San Francisco County Jail CJ2. It alleged that, on March 12 and 13, 2023, Sgt. Vigil was deliberately indifferent to Johnson’s serious medical needs by housing him in high-stress cells, allegedly in retaliation for Johnson’s filing of another case. Johnson also filed a request to submit another amended or supplemental complaint and for a temporary restraining order, alleging that his legal mail had been opened twice. He separately filed a request for an order to show cause.

Which complaint the court reviewed

The court explained that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint. Therefore, Johnson’s amended complaint was the only operative complaint, and the court screened only that filing. The defendants named in the original complaint—San Francisco Assistant District Attorney Anupa George and San Francisco Superior Court Judge Bruce Chan—were no longer defendants in this action because they were not named in the amended complaint. The court also concluded that the amended complaint could not serve as a supplemental complaint because Johnson had not obtained permission to file one and the matters in it were distinct from those in the original complaint.

Exhaustion ruling

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally requires a prisoner to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing a federal action about prison conditions. The court found from the face of Johnson’s amended complaint that he had not done so. Johnson reported filing an informal appeal on March 12, 2023, signing the amended complaint on March 13, and mailing it that day. The court held that correctional officials’ failure to respond to the informal appeal within one day did not show that the grievance process was unavailable or that Johnson had completed every level of the jail’s grievance system.

The court also found it implausible that Johnson had filed grievances at each level, received responses, and appealed those responses within 24 hours. It therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. It denied as moot Johnson’s request for another amended or supplemental complaint and a temporary restraining order, identified as ECF No. 7, and his request for an order to show cause, identified as ECF No. 8. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and against Johnson and close the case.

The opinion additionally states that, even if the original complaint had been considered, the claims against Anupa George and Bruce Chan would have been dismissed with prejudice because of prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity. That statement addressed the original complaint, not the court’s disposition of the operative amended complaint.