Johnson v. Banos

Background

Darrell Eugene Johnson brought a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that San Mateo County failed to implement proper COVID-protection procedures and that he contracted COVID while in the custody of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department. Johnson was in custody from July 20, 2021, until August 9, 2022. He was housed at the Maguire Correctional Facility from November 23, 2021, to February 21, 2022.

Johnson’s cellmate tested positive for COVID on January 4, 2022, and Johnson tested positive on January 9. A nurse evaluated Johnson that day. The nurse recorded coughing, tongue swelling, a knot in his upper back, chest discomfort, and a headache, but also noted that Johnson was alert, had clear lungs, showed no respiratory distress, and had normal vital signs. Johnson received a new albuterol inhaler. The opinion states that his symptoms did not worsen and that he did not require further COVID-related medical treatment.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

The Sheriff’s Office grievance procedures allowed people in custody to file health-care requests and inmate grievances. The opinion states that these forms were the only method for seeking administrative remedies for jail problems. If a grievance was denied, the person could appeal, with the final appeal going to the Division Commander.

Johnson filed 90 health-care request forms and 13 inmate grievances during his custody. The County submitted records showing that none mentioned COVID-19 or the jail’s COVID procedures, except for one reference to Johnson’s vaccination. The Sheriff’s Office also had no record of a grievance filed around the time Johnson’s cellmate contracted COVID or any COVID-related grievance. Johnson asserted that he had filed a grievance about his COVID-related claims, but he did not identify its date, number, or contents. He said it was denied but did not describe an appeal.

Johnson also filed a claim with the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors seeking payment for contracting COVID in custody. The court explained that this county claim did not satisfy the separate grievance procedure required for his federal civil-rights lawsuit.

Court’s analysis

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a person in custody to properly complete available administrative remedies before filing a federal lawsuit about prison or jail conditions. Proper exhaustion requires using every step of the facility’s grievance process and following its deadlines and other procedural requirements. The County had the burden to show that a grievance process was available and that Johnson failed to complete it.

The court found that the County met that burden through its records. Johnson’s general assertion that he had filed a grievance was insufficient to create a genuine dispute about exhaustion, particularly because he did not identify the grievance or provide evidence about its contents. The court also found that, even accepting Johnson’s assertion that he filed and lost an initial grievance, he did not show that he appealed it to the Division Commander.

Disposition

The court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, enter judgment for San Mateo County, and close the file. The court did not reach the underlying question of whether the County’s COVID procedures violated Johnson’s rights.