Flournoy v. Marin County

Background

James Henry Flournoy, a pretrial detainee at the Marin County Jail, filed an amended complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute allows a person to seek relief for a violation of federal rights by someone acting under state law. The amended complaint followed the court’s dismissal of his original complaint with permission to amend.

Flournoy alleged that, on December 29, 2022, Marin County Jail Classification Deputy Husk placed him in disciplinary isolation, also called restrictive housing, without the notice and opportunity to be heard required for disciplinary punishment. He alleged that he remained there for more than 30 days even though he had not violated jail rules. When he appealed the placement, he was told that it was based on his pending criminal charges and multiple management notes and behavior. Flournoy also sought permission to add claims concerning events that occurred after he filed his original complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires courts to identify viable claims in a prisoner’s lawsuit against a governmental entity or officer and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

For a procedural due-process claim by a pretrial detainee, the court first asks whether the alleged deprivation was punishment. If it was punishment, due process may require notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court explained that disciplinary segregation imposed for violating jail rules cannot be imposed without those protections.

The court found, however, that the documents attached to Flournoy’s amended complaint showed that he was not placed in restrictive housing for disciplinary or punitive reasons. Instead, the placement was administrative and based on housing classification, including the jail’s consideration of his record of negative management notes and behavior. The court noted that Flournoy was told to raise concerns during his next classification review.

The court also considered whether California law created a protected liberty interest in a particular housing assignment. California Code of Regulations title 15, section 1050 requires county jails to create classification plans using objective criteria and to provide a way for incarcerated people to appeal or request review. But the regulation says housing assignments must be made only to the extent possible given the available housing units or cells. The court held that the regulation contained no substantive requirements or mandatory language requiring a particular placement. Flournoy therefore had no state-created right to a specific housing assignment that required advance notice and a hearing.

Disposition

The court held that the restrictive-housing placement was not punishment and that Flournoy had no state-created liberty interest in a specific housing placement. It therefore dismissed his procedural due-process claim.

The court denied Flournoy’s request to file a supplemental pleading without prejudice to bringing the separate, later-arising causes of action in a separate lawsuit.

The court dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Judge Charles R. Breyer signed the order on September 18, 2023.