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. He alleged that he slipped and fell while cleaning a shower, suffered a slipped disk, and was inadequately diagnosed and treated by jail personnel. He also alleged that a hospital later diagnosed him properly and provided better treatment, but that he continued to receive inadequate treatment and medication after returning to the jail.

Perez faulted the Contra Costa County Sheriff Department for not providing rubber boots to prevent his fall and for providing inadequate medical care. The court separately granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Screening analysis

Because Perez sought relief from a governmental entity, the court screened the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that it had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. It also stated that it would read a self-represented litigant’s pleadings liberally, but that the complaint still needed enough factual allegations to make the requested relief plausible rather than speculative.

For a municipality to be liable under § 1983 for a constitutional violation caused by governmental inaction or omission, a plaintiff must show a constitutional right, a municipal policy, deliberate indifference to that right, and that the policy caused the constitutional violation. The court found that Perez did not allege any policies at the jail or allege that such policies caused his injuries. The court said he would need to provide specific facts plausibly showing that the absence of rubber boots and the inadequate medical care were caused by jail policies, assuming he could do so in good faith.

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 and civil case number, be labeled “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, and include all claims he wished to pursue because it would replace the original complaint. The order stated that failure to amend within the deadline and in accordance with the order would result in dismissal of the case. It also directed Perez to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.