Perez v. Contra Costa County Sheriff Department

Background

Edwin Solorzano Perez, an inmate at Contra Costa County Jail, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion states that he was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Perez alleged that he slipped and fell while cleaning the shower, suffered a slipped disk, and was inadequately diagnosed and treated by jail personnel. He stated that a hospital later diagnosed his condition properly and provided better treatment. He alleged that, after returning to the jail, he continued to receive inadequate treatment and medication. He blamed the Contra Costa County Sheriff Department for failing to provide rubber boots and for providing inadequate medical care.

Court’s analysis

The court conducted the preliminary screening required for prisoner lawsuits seeking relief from a governmental entity or its officers or employees. Under that screening law, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible rather than speculative.

For a § 1983 claim against a municipal entity based on governmental inaction or omission, the court said a plaintiff must show: a constitutional right, a deprivation of that right, a municipal policy, deliberate indifference to the right, and that the policy was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. The court found that Perez did not allege any policies at the jail, much less facts showing that a policy caused his injuries. It stated that he needed to allege specific facts plausibly showing that the absence of rubber boots and the inadequate medical care were caused by jail policies.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Perez to file an amended complaint within 28 days after the order was filed. The amended complaint had to include the caption, the civil case number, and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. Because an amended complaint replaces the original complaint, the court said Perez could not incorporate the original complaint by reference and had to include all claims he wished to pursue.

The court also stated that Perez was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of any address change, and complying with court orders. It warned that failing to amend as required could result in dismissal of the case, and that failing to prosecute could also result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judge Jeffrey S. White signed the order.